Isn't saying publicly that this person is evil, inciting hatred upon that person, based upon wholly of sexual orientation.
TTO, your use of language is interesting and in my opinion a little on the over-stated side. I have no brief to defend the JWs because as I've said many times, they are well-meaning but 'deluded', to put it kindly.
Having said that, the JWs are (usually) very careful to say they hate the disfellowshipped person's behavior and not the person and theyavoid publicly stating that a named ex-member is evil and should be hated. I'm open however to any documented evidence that specific members have been called evil and JWs told to hate them. When names are read from the platform of kingdom halls advising that people have been disfellowshipped the message is brief and does not contain details of 'wrongdoing'. I have never heard of elders 'inciting hatred upon' ex-members. Indeed, what they usually do is detail how the ex-members have spread 'falsehoods' and rumors, etc.about the WTS.
Again, the main beneficiary of any legal contest will be well-paid lawyers, dining on the drawn out court proceedings, whilst each side makes claims and counterclaims. Each side could potentially argue it has been the victim of hate speech - which simply shows that the concept of hate speech is very slippery. E.g., If the WTS cannot criticise you because you would constitute their criticism as hate speech, could they not also allege that your criticism of them is hate speech? I've read some pretty graphically emotional condemnations of named JWs on website forums. I presume JWs are not broadcasting via the net the names of ex-JWs and/or their 'sins'.
The whole matter turns on legal definitions and let's not forget that the Catholic Church has often rubbed its hands with glee when the courts have charged the WTS with assorted crimes over the decades.