well, if most people "understood" what hostility, malice and so on were in the case of race, then there wouldn't be so many authors agreeing that hate group classifications are vague.
you can chalk this up to some error on my part, but that doesn't help you understand anything. I could easily just say, in turn, that you're simplifying a complex social phenomenon due to (insert some negative trait about you). this needs to be provabe in some way. a person saying "hey, there are a lot of ways to look at this situation" doesn't mean they have trouble with context.
context is quite easy for me to understand. in fact, it's because there are so many angles from which to come at a situation that it's easy for me to see how these terms are vague. the
more I learn socially the more this is true; situations seemed more straightforward when I knew less about other human beings. with the trend of more knowledge = more complexity, I would be lying to myself
and you if I agreed with this being merely a context issue.
finally, "hostility" is not something that is clear due to racial context. if you participate in a discussion group of largely economically well-off people, even so much as swearing will be regarded as hostile. this has nothing to do with race, but just perceptions of hostility which may be directed at race. meanwhile, if samuel l jackson swears, he's just talking.
regardless, if the quoted article was not enough for you, try
this (canadian, but relevant):
https://theconversation.com/section-...repealed-64482
or this (an scholarly publication on the issue):
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewconte...522&context=lr