You're absolutely right.
Obviously, the challenge is to protect vulnerable people who are victims of revenge porn or hate speech while protecting freedom of expression. That's your challenge.
Where that balance is very concretely reflected, where it can be found, is in the definition of hate. At the heart of this balance is the definition of content that promotes hatred and the definition of hate. I would draw your attention to the fact that you need to define this very precisely. This concerns freedom of expression for two reasons.
First, if you define the concept of hate too broadly, the courts will sanction people who have justly acceptable speech that, in an open liberal democracy, should ideally be tolerated. There's that risk.
Second, there is an even greater risk: if it isn't clear, litigants who wish to speak won't know exactly whether their remarks could fall within the scope of the act or not. A litigant might want to say something that is just fine and not subject to the act. However, since the definition isn't clear, the litigant could refrain from making that comment. That chilling effect is perhaps more problematic than the risk of courts convicting people of actions that should be protected by freedom of expression.