Actually, I'll respond a bit more fully. Courts have ruled against speech that poses an imminent threat to public safety. You are quite within your rights to espouse a philosophy that demands an overthrow of the government and the eslavement of every left-handed Mexican, for example. Also, it's amusing to see that the case you then go on to cite has nothing at all to do with the point you were ostensibly trying to make.
Dude, here is the case file. Read it for yourself and get back to me. LOL. What a moron. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=315&invol=568 Here is an excerpt. "Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: 'No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation."
Lol, this is so funny. You get dumber with every post. Your above example is far more likely to be construed as 'fighting words', you dope. It obviously isn't any "essential part of exposition of ideas". So, er, no, I don't see a whole lot of first amendment protection for you there. You are really even more clueless than I though. You may want to go and look up what 'hate speech' actually is before you try debating it.
Read my last post again moron, it is defined very clearly for you. "Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: 'No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupations." I can't believe you don't get this.
Mav, er, unlike you, I actually know something about the topic. If you think that that is the sole definition of 'hate speech', and that that case is defining piece of case law you are so wrong it absolutely laughable. 'Hate speech' does not equal only 'fighting words'. I know you're madly scrambling about the internet trying to find some back up for your bankrupt claims, so I'm sure you can't have failed to notice the numerous cases that deal with the speech/action dichotomy. Perhaps it's time for you to stop trying to 'be right', and actually get educated on the world around you.
I never said that was only definition nor did I ever say that was the defining case. You asked me to point out to you where the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech and I did just that. I then gave you a link that offered a view on what hate speech was. Now you are scrambling around to say, well hell's bells Margaret, that ain't the only definition. I just pointed out to you that you are wrong, nothing more. And you can't come to grips with that. You wanted the Supreme Court ruling, so I gave it to you, now you are backtracking pretending I made this out to be something more then it was. Please quote me where I said this was the only ruling or the defining ruling. I never said that! Just admit it, you are a beat man. Go home. Nothing left to see here.
You -- you loo-hoo-zer -- were the one that the right to free speech doesn't mean the right to "hate speech". Which is obviously not true, because it certainly does include the right to hate speech. Not the right to 'fighting words', as you keep bringing up, but the right to 'hate speech'. You did not give me the Supreme court ruling you dufus. You gave me a supreme court ruling; and a supreme court ruling that deals with the subtopic of 'fighting words', not the general concept of 'hate speech'. It is you that is (yet again!) backtracking -- apparently unaware of what you previously said. Mav, I really don't know who you think you're fooling here, given that anyone can quickly look back at what you wrote and see that your attempts to deny or distort it fall laughably short. Really, I think it's quite clear to all who the "beaten man" is here (yet again!). Ps -- I must confess that the only reason I'm even bothering to reply here is to see if you'll be man enough to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong here. Maybe for the first time in your life.
Whoa there buddy! You'd better watch out. 'Cos according to you, what you just did isn't protected by your first amendment rights in America.