Facing an increase of hate speech incidents on campus and in society at large, egalitarians have made great efforts to advocate (when there is no regulation) or to defend (when there is regulation) hate speech regulation. Meanwhile, civil libertarians have counter argued forcefully. This paper is designed to do an internal critique of various egalitarian arguments. Part I is introduction. Part II and Part III give a concise description of many egalitarian arguments. Part IV tries to do an internal critique of those arguments. Part V is the conclusion: though egalitarians have made a great effort to advocate or defend hate speech regulation, their evidence and reasoning does not support their position very well, especially with respect to the so-called face-to-face hate speech regulation. Part VI is a cursory comment and defense of what federal courts have done so far with respect to hate speech regulation.