[manifestsilence]

No. There is a crucial distinction here. Hate speech that is only mean is one thing and should be protected. Hate speech that incites violence against a particular individual or group is not protected speech. This includes a few things said by the current POTUS, such as (approximate quote from memory), "maybe the guy should be roughed up", said of a guy who was currently being roughly physically removed from his rally. Speech to incite violence is not protected by the first amendment and should not be.

[daenz]

Hate speech "enhances" the punishment for a crime, but alone, it is not a crime. Another crime must already have occurred for "hate speech" to have any legal impact. The crime you are trying to describe is incitement to "imminent lawless action"[0], and it's already not protected speech, so tacking on "hate speech," as in, "hate speech that incites violence" is unnecessary.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[sdinsn]

> Hate speech that incites violence

"Hate speech that incites violence" is not "hate speech". I don't know why you are trying to force the connection between hate speech and violent threatening speech.

[umanwizard]

> Speech to incite violence is not protected by the first amendment and should not be.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with hate speech and is in fact completely orthogonal. There is hate speech that doesn't (immediately and directly) incite violence, and there is non-hate speech that does.

Trump's comment, for example, was inciting violence, I agree. And I agree that it shouldn't be allowed. But it wasn't hate speech. So why are you bringing it up in response to a comment about hate speech?