To be honest I stopped taking the idea of the moral censorship of games seriously back when "Night Trap" was the big controversial game for reasons I never fully understood, it apparently got brought before the Senate and everything.
My other go to example is of course the whole ridiculous "Hot Coffee" thing, which while bi-partisan heavily involved Hillary Clinton https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/07/senator-clinton-burned-hot-coffee-proposes-grand-theft-free-speech which is a big part of why I have such a hate-on for her and will do everything I can to oppose her. This is also why the Statue of Happiness looks like her not that Rock Star will officially confirm it (for lack of a death wish) https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AotII0VMgBQXdjvOyYH6n8ebvZx4?p=Hillary+Clinton+San+Andreas+censorship&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-exclusiveBkt&fp=1
Then of course we have manhunt http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/19085/sen-clinton-other-politicians-challenge-esrb-concerning-manhunt-2/
From this we can pretty much deduce Hillary Clinton gets around, being pretty much a proponent of trying to have the USA outdo Australia in terms of video game censorship, but that this has been going on pretty much forever, and will likely never go away as long as there are crazy politicians who want a boogie man.... and of course I expect to hear more about it, above and beyond "Hatred" if Hillary decides to use the issue to again try and rally bi-partisan support either during her election campaign or afterwards. Of course this all predates her... so, I imagine someone else will pick up the torch when she's gone.
As far as "Hatred" goes I personally didn't buy it, not because of the content, indeed I love ultra-violence and fairly "dark" material, but because to me it didn't seem particularly good. It seemed to have very little going for it other than a gun slinging rampage, like someone tried to make a video game out of a certain Uwe Ball movie. People used to joke about stuff like this in video games going back to things like "Ikari Warriors", making elaborate jokes about how "well what if this isn't what it appears, and these two guys are on a murder rampage, I mean we have no real context for the bad guys being bad other than the implication that they are because we're shooting them", or even going so far as the whole farce about them being angry golfers (given how the guns were drawn) on a rampage with the national guard trying to stop them from tearing apart Hawaii.... it's like someone made a top down shooter, made the joke a reality, and then said it was something special. It's not even unique, because we've already seen games where your on what amounts to a malevolent murder rampage, pretty much any sand box RPG that lets you kill NPCs does this rather well and actually makes it a little more disturbing and visceral since the option is there, but it's not the implicit purpose of the game.
I'll also say that "Hatred" isn't even that offensive, I mean "Ethnic Cleansing" is offensive (people always forget that one), as pathetic as it was "Custer's Revenge" was offensive, various columbine themed FPS mods were going out of their way to be offensive, and of course we have "Mohammad Sex Simulator 2015" which exists for no other purpose than to be antagonistically offensive (yes it exists). As a result I don't really see the appeal, I mean nowadays if your going to be shocking you have to try harder, there are coders who make offensive video games pretty much for free (doing it for the lulz) that arguably push the envelope further than Hatred ever conceived of... I've never really understood why it got so much attention... even more than "Super Columbine RPG" (yes it exists) which despite how it sounds is actually a pretty balanced analysis of the entire situation, making points about both sides, having briefly gotten it's 5 minutes of exposure after being rejected from contests due to it's content, by people assuming it was something it wasn't, that might even be the actual previous champion for internet outrage.