There is no general hate speech exception to 1A, which means that hate speech is protected speech.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

This is protected speech.

Link to tweet

There is no general hate speech exception to me, which means that hate speech is protected speech unless it otherwise falls within an actual recognized exception.

Link to tweet

[hlthe2b]

1. A ridiculously simplistic statement. There are litigated exceptions including that which incites

violence or otherwise puts public safety at risk (the supposedly well-known, but apparently now ignored by some pundits, "yelling fire in a crowded theater) exception.

Such claptrap is dangerous and only feeds into an ignorant society's perceptions of the law. Just as all the RW memes about the 2nd amendment do.

I'm angry this is being posted without context, frankly. And no, I'm not going to be around to argue so you can say what you will. This simplistic out-of-context comment is just ridiculous.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. "... unless it otherwise falls within an actual recognized exception."

For speech to be unprotected as “incitement,” it must be:

1) intended to cause, and
2) likely to cause
3) imminent
4) lawless action

Link to tweet

[hlthe2b]

3. FIRST TWEET--totally unadorned: "THIS IS PROTECTED SPEACH" and that was IT

even if they are going by the 140 character rules, this could have been accompanied by a truthful comment on exceptions. DO YOU REALLY THINK that the first comment will not be the one everyone reads and disseminates--just like all the BS about the Second Amendment that has now been all but official shortened to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," totally ignoring the preceding statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

No, this is irresponsible. Officious sources and others need to think about how they construct comments on Twitter and the damage potential of not being absolutely clear to a very uninformed public (percentage-wise). Given I have seen many DUers argue the first part of the 1st amendment comment, ignoring the exceptions, I think it is a problem here TOO.

BTW, that Twitter user is just as likely an RWer WANTING to confuse the issue and thus constructed his initial tweet as he/she did, as anyone else. It is a Twitter handle and NOT apparently associated with an official group seeking to inform or educate on the constitution (and who would have undoubtedly made sure to add the necessary context from the start), despite its name.

[Ferrets are Cool]

4. What would be the outrage IF he said this:

The government should execute EVERY black person. They should be lined up and hanged. That's what God wants.

Would THAT be considered hate speech?