In the light of uncertain social atmosphere in Europe, which has been intensified by the refugee crisis in recent years, the presence of hate speech (especially online hate speech) has become increasingly persistent. In Slovenia, the growing problem of hateful communication has been addressed by many governmental, non-governmental and professional organizations that have in turn shaped the public understanding of hate speech in Slovenian public space. However, the ambiguity of the term, indicated by the lack of consensus about hate speech definition in sociology, politics or law, enables those defining and regulating the problem of hate speech to interpret it in line with their own interests. By exploring the relationship between actual hate speech presence online and speech about hate speech, the undergraduate thesis highlights the extent to which the position of each political pole towards hate speech is justified, since political poles could mould their conception of hate speech to fit their own interests. Undergraduate thesis starts by outlining two different standpoints on the problem of hate speech that are ascribed to the left and right political pole, the former being characterized by perceiving hate speech as a consequence of the rise of right-winged politics and the latter by interpreting the problem of hate speech as a leftist tool to oppress political alternatives. The empirical analysis that follows compares the triggers of hate speech on Slovenian Twitter in the last three years with the triggers of speech about hate speech in the same period and highlights the relationship between the actual dimensions of online hate speech and the problem of hate speech as perceived by political and other relevant actors. Considering the identified triggers of online hate speech, speech about hate speech and their correspondence, the thesis characterizes both political standpoints on hate speech as partially (in)justified and closes with questioning the causal relationship between hate speech and hate actions.