free speech vs. hate speech

The First Amendment  gives us the right to free speech:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
  West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
  Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). (I'm thinking if money is speech, a lot of us can't afford much free speech)
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
  Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
  Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). 

In other words, speech can be oral communication, written communication, symbolic communication, financial communication (obviously we can not all use this method equally), without any restrictions on message.

Well, with some restrictions.

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).   (I'm pretty sure "hate speech" has frequently done just that--think lynchings and beatings and---dragging people behind cars or horses)
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). (You know, "I know it when I see it")
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). (Since a draft card is a piece of paper, I'm thinking this might need to be re-looked at.  We don't require everyone to carry ID all the time, and we aren't currently drafting people, so maybe a new, this-century, ruling is needed, especially with all the deferred people running the country.)
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007). (I'm thinking I see a trend, schools have more rights than students, apparently schools are treated like private property and private business, so those owning the school are the only ones that can make the rules---a perfect set up to use propaganda instead of education about critical thinking.)

Sooo.

Where does hate speech fall into this.

Is it all right to call people different than ourselves names? rude names? obscene names?

Is it all right to suggest people different than us not be allowed in the country? as immigrants? as vacationers? as visa holders?  This is not about immigration, but about talking against immigration, specifically against the immigration of those groups that we personally hate.

Is it all right to stirringly speak on the evils of certain religious groups or cultural groups or any group that is not living in the middle of the mainstream? what if we stir up violence?

Is it all right to condone the murder of those people?

Is it all right to endorse candidates for political positions using money or the distribution of materials that are printed or on the internet that are speaking on the evils of certain groups and/or condone the removal or death of those people?

Do we have a right in this country to "hate speech".

Many of us consider such activities obscene--not in a sexual manner, but in a demeaning and degrading way, and isn't that what makes porn obscene?

Much of the speech that has been disallowed involves minors in schools, or people in schools--universities that are not state schools, but rather private.  

A lot of speech that has been disallowed involves the condoning of illegal activities.
To be illegal, there must be a law against it.
What if there is no law.
What if there is a law which is immoral, unethical, or conflicts with the constitution?

I'm not at all sure why a person can not burn their draft card--but I haven't seen a draft card since the 1970's and that was a different time--a much more "mainstream" time (read majority rights over individual rights, English-speaking white man rights over woman or child or brown or non-English-rights).
If we can't speak freely about things that are currently illegal, like marijuana use, or in the 1910's-women voting, or in the 1960's equal rights for everyone---you get it, protesting is always against what is a current law but not a fair law--then is there any free speech?
If we can speak of killing or exiling (I'm not kidding,:that stinking "America, love it or leave it" bumpersticker slogan is protected by freedom of speech, but the minute they try to make people leave by intimidation or violence, it's hate speech.) those that disagree with the current laws, that want to stop people form seeking equal rights or equal treatrment, are not just practicing freedom of speech, they are trying to intimidate people into silence and that is hate speech without doubt.
I very recently got into one of those social media back-and-forth discussions where someone decided to call everyone on a site stupid for believing what they believed.  The first question is, why was he on the site--yes, yes, freedom of speech, but why?
Then, he proceeded, due to personally knowing the person that posted the information and not wanting to be insulting, to try to explain how he knew that his personal acquaintainces were not  like those "far left crazies wearing the pink hats".
Pussy hats.
Far left extremists.
You know, women that didn't like it that the president of the United States of America bragged about being so rich and so powerful he could grab strange women by the pussy, even though he didn't know them and had no relationship with them.
FAR LEFT EXTREMISTS---was there a single woman that heard that and that thought, "cool, my kind of guy"?
Freedom of speech let him say that.
It also let me call him ridiculous and block him (not the president, the troll.  When I figure out how to block the president, I'll let everyone know---for free).
I love "freedom of speech".
I hate "hate speech".
But I loath just plain ridiculous speech.
Good luck figuring out what is going on in the USA these days.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does