yes, it is speech that they hate so much that they want to commit an act of violence against those who speak. Now who in the contemporary world does that sound like? Cartoon fans perhaps? 😉

None of them was about whether punishing free expression is a bad/good policy or idea in the first place. It is as if most thinkers generally accepted that suppressing opinions or expressions is generally neat policy when you have possibility to implement it.

It is not much of surprise then that “it is good policy anyway” logic gets applied to situations where it finally breaks that amendment. Nobody heard the defense of free speech idea people itself in a long time.

If the law is the only reason why not to do x, then people start to ponder whether the law itself is a good idea.

E., that definition is almost exactly what “fighting words” are, which are not protected. The distinction is real. Hate speech *cannot* be suborning of violence, otherwise (in the status quo) it loses its protection. Thus, a new (and separate) ban on hate speech would also have to maintain the distinction on violence and thus define hate speech in a way that it isn’t inciting violence.