Comment from my vote: Free speech ceases to be free speech when it infringes on other peoples' human rights. If I say all people with brown hair should die, I am expressing a dangerous idea that, in the minds of the wrong people, could be catastrophic. That is hate speech. If I say I don't like people with brown hair, then that, while being rude and discriminatory, does not harm anyone or promote dangerous ideas. That is free speech. There is a noticeable difference.
@Aus1028 - You're objectively wrong! Brandenburg V. Ohio, 1969, where the advocacy of violence within the state of inflammatory speech is within the protections of the First Amendment. The only limitation to the first amendment is the immediate potential to inflict harm upon another person; that particularly being yelling fire in a crowded place without there being a fire; threatening to shoot someone whilst bearing a firearm; and anything else that are along the guidelines of being an immediate threat.
Furthermore, if I were to actively say that gypsies should be executed because they are the scum of the earth- as this is just a hypothetical- it is within my constitutional right to say that. Though it is actively promoting "dangerous ideas" and inciting violence on an ethnic group, it is perfectly legal.
As per your own argument, it is completely baseless and is based entirely on your opinion. The fact of the matter is that hate speech is free speech and has been declared so by many rulings by the Supreme Court.
@Aus1028 - What is interpreted as hate speech by one person is entirely different to another. The fact of the matter is that the classification of what is or is not hate speech is subjective to who you are speaking to. A perfect example is a rather prolific amount of contradicting opinions among Students at Occidental College.
Just two years ago, ReasonTV made multiple street interviews with college students at the College. The interview was meant to inquire on micro-aggressions (which does not exist) and the dangers of hate speech! These students were so terrified of offending people that they completely ignored intellectual diversity on campus and focussed on inclusivity and protecting the ever so precious minorities. The video is an exemplary example as to why hate speech is nonsense and why saying it should be outlawed is outrageously stupid:
Hate speech is free speech. However, inciting people to commit murder or genocide is, I think, a criminal act that may be seen as the equivalent of someone give an order for another to illegitimately kill someone.
Stating only a mere opinion that certain people might be worthless or that certain people should die is free speech. Immoral opinion if it's arbitrary (killing for social class appartenance or for racial appartenance etc.), but it is free speech.
So, law should make a subtle distinction between inciting to murder or genociden (criminal act) vs. Condoning opinions that support murder or genocide (free speech).