It seems to have been fashionable for disability activists and charities to regard anything they do not agree with as hate speech, a term designed to provide unchallenged sympathy from the debate. They use a few isolated history articles to strifal free speech and debate on disability issues because of a free that if the public really understood the issues, they would see through the lies and propaganda being spouted. The activists claim the media regard de disabled people as benefit scroungers when in really them as objects of pity.
While disabled activists feel assuming disabled people can and should work is hate speech, I would argue assuming disabled people can not work and are vulnerable victims of society in the way they do is far more hateful and can be regarded as hate speech in the way they define it, and I tell them as such, to provoke some understanding of the offensive way they portray disabled people. I however do in reality strongly believe in free speech of any kind so long as its is not a personal attack based on lies, but all ideology must be debatable so the public can see the holes of those who are extremely.
I believe no one can claim the moral high ground, certainly not by crying hate speech at anything they disagree with, and free speech is critical to the real liberation of all disabled people.