"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[Warren DeMontague]

10. so-called "hate speech" is PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, it is.

And yes, that applies to bigoted speech targeting any of the groups you mention.

Pointing out that the 1st Amendment protects such speech is not even remotely the same thing as defending the speech itself. Again, I can defend the right of the Nazis to make asses of themselves in a march in Skokie, under the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I like Nazis or what they have to say. Surely a bright Chap such as yourself understands that distinction.

Simply because many forms of:

A) slander and libel (similar concepts, with specific legal definitions, pertaining to deliberately spreading false public information directly about a real individual- insulting someone's religion or diety would not apply),

B) intimidation, (i.e. harassment and making direct threats against a specific person or persons)

and lastly

C) 'incitement (this one being pretty damn narrow and difficult to apply as a legal standard; you might make an 'incitement' charge stick for someone who was standing with a bullhorn in front of an angry crowd and saying "I want you all to riot right the fuck now!" Sadly, for, as you put it, "many DU'ers", particularly those with a deficient understanding of the 1st Amendment, incitement does NOT mean "saying something that might make some person or group really, really, reeeeeeeeeeallly mad!"

might also fall under the category of "hate speech", does NOT mean that the hate speech itself is what is prohibited. It is the slander, libel, intimidation or (rarely, if ever) "incitement" that is prohibited. Hate Speech", again, in and of itself, is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Other countries; Canada springs to mind, I think- have different interpretations of what constitutes "free speech" and where the lines are.