In the times of Jesus, he was wrongly accused of blasphemy, a crime worthy of stoning back in Roman times, for taking the name of God in vain by stating that He and the Father were one, but blasphemy would not have considered to have been "hate speech" if such a crime existed back in the time of Jesus, because blasphemy and hate speech are not the same thing, as one is primarily directed against God, whereas hate speech is primarily directed against an individual or group based on their race, or religion, or national origin and so on.
The question then becomes, if Jesus was tried under contemporary standards of hate speech laws, would He be in violation of such? It would seem, quite obviously, that He would be, because Jesus was never afraid to testify and speak the truth that brought forth words that were uncomfortable to certain specific people. For instance, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus states: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!..." and proceeds to compare these scribes and Pharisees as to being blind, extortionists, the children of them that killed prophets, serpents, vipers, and that these same scribes and Pharisees were on the path that would lead them inexorably to the damnation of hell. These words can be interpreted in no other way but as being hateful and these words were being directed specifically to a creed, a specific people, and a religious sect, to which he, the Christ, was proclaiming that these scribes and Pharisees were essentially murderers and full of deceit, in league with the devil so that the damnation of hell was to be their legacy, and that they therefore were worlds apart from being true representatives of their proclaimed faith.
Not too surprisingly, these scribes and Pharisees held these very words against Jesus, and because of this hate speech and other actions of Jesus, made it their avowed aim to bring swift justice onto Jesus for his audacity in publicly attacking them in such a manner as to belittle them as a people and to bring dishonor to their name and status in their faith and community. These scribes and Pharisees were able to manipulate the law, the Roman authorities, and the people so that they were able to see rendered the justice that they felt that Jesus deserved for his hate and for his stirring up of trouble, all because Jesus would not be polite enough to mind his own manners, and to show respect to those that he owed tolerance and respect to.
So too did Jesus overturn the tables of the moneychangers and those that sold doves in the temple of God, and stated in Matthew 21:13 that: "… My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Once again, this Jesus was spewing hatred because he was calling out certain specific people as thieves, merely for utilizing their monetary skills to make a little extra profit for themselves, and further he was disrupting their business as if he had the legal authority to do so, which he did not. That is yet another prime example of a hate speech, coupled with an actual crime, from He who behaved as if He was above the law.
Had Jesus lived in today's world, he would be guilty of hate speech, but since Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30), this would make God too an intolerant hater as defined by man. This then is the error that comes from those that raise Hate to the apex of how justice is perceived rather than recognizing that Truth in all of its forms is the highest good of all justice.