Your knowledge of case law here (some) is probably greater than mine (very little) so I won’t debate where on which way individual cases have gone. If they are being judged more “right” than wrong in the US, then huzzah; one thing less to worry about in that locality.

Now should we talk about how creationists are trying to turn school classrooms into a free speech issue? I may make a post about that in the future anyway.

A better example might be the majority enshrining certain speech above others, despite its clear conflict with other inalienable rights. “In God We Trust” comes to mind, or the “under God” portion of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In any event, I’m just being petty. Sorry.

Let’s replace the example with defamation, or other exception to free speech.

Hateful speech is still protected by the First Amendment, but not if it incites violence. That same standard is applied to speech of any form. The qualifier “hate” does however make a difference when prosecuting crimes proceeding from that speech – that is, the punishment is more severe.

For example, the KKK and the neo-Nazis are permitted to assemble, stump, publish, distribute, and otherwise express their views that anyone without white skin is inferior to them. However, the punishment against them if violence occurs is greater. Thought it might chill their speech somewhat, it seems quite reasonable to me because the characteristic of that speech is to incite such violence, and history has shown that it has been successful at it. Thus, it provides an incentive for them to be more careful about what they say, because it can so easily lead to other problems.