Indeed. One BIG exception to 'Free Speech' is 'hate speech'...and NOBODY is entitled to that, citizen or not.

Not in the United States.  Hate speech is as protected as any other speech, such as the obscene hate speech spewed by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals for soldiers.

The only real limitations on free speech in the U.S. is speech intended to cause more direct harm (i.e., shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater to create a stampede that gets people hurt), copyrighted material, libel and slander (written and spoken speech, respectively, which is provably untrue and is intended to cause harm to a person's reputation), and threats against specific people.

Actually, there was a hate speech prevention law that was passed and signed early in 2009. It expanded previous hate speech laws to include gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. What the law does is provide federal funds and federal law enforcement resources to local and state governments who are prosecuting persons under their hate speech laws. In other words, the Federal Government doesn't directly make it illegal. But even under local and State laws, there has to be some violent action to people or property before it can be invoked. It is not simply name calling. Here in Forums, one should acquaint himself with the TOU before responding however he/she wishes (specifically 3. a. and 3. k.). This is private, not public land. 

I did not know about the hate speech prevention law Doc, thanks. I am glad it exists.

for example if you don't like fracking in your neighborhood, the NATO chief suspects you to be a Russian agent. 

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.html 

Hate speech is speech.  Just like hate crimes are crimes.  Distinction without a difference.  Hate speech laws have no place in a country with a First Amendment.  What ever happened to 'Sticks and stones...' anyway?

Well, that's your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it but legislators think and thought differently, probably because it ceases to be 'sticks and stones' when linked to a suggestion or a call to hurt those 'others', it can incite to violence...which is also a crime. Therefore, the difference is intent.

"How is hate speech defined? A definition includes: “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.”¹ Another source defines hate speech as “speech not protected by the First Amendment (U.S.) because it is intended to foster actions against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”² 

¹ www.dictionary.com
² Webster’s New World Law Dictionary (2010)"

- http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/hate-speech-definition.htm

Okay, so in YOUR mind, you're doing nothing illegal, immoral or wrong.  Okay, Fine, but that's your interpretation, and while you may  be entirely correct based on past lawas and moral views, the standing government of the day and its bureaucrats may see things entirely differently.  That's when you yourself could run afoul of the law - without even realising it - so would it be fair to say that whatever the authorities decide to inflict upon you for  non-compliance such as electroshock treatments, anal probes and bamboo shoots under the fingernails are in fact justified?

Me thinks you would protest vehemently and denounce the government for being too heavy handed, etc... not that it would do you any good.  The presumption of innocence in a paranoid country with a paranoid government that employs paranoid twats who take great delight in making others people's lives a misery is less than a mere fallacy, it's a downright fechen lie.

Sorry, Tom, its all well and good to take a holier than thou stance here, but you may be one in the next batch of victims of the next governmental, bureaucratic witch hunt simply because your initials simply fit some computer mopdel some FBI, CIA twat fed into the computer to justify his/her position and high paid salary

In a perfect world, mate, but in the US you can forget that... and it filters down to local law enforcement, local government, even the stores and supermarket chains you shop in.  Don't believe me?  Do some research on the store surveillance staff and the equipment at their disposal to identify potential thieves, etc, and just how many innocent people are extremely badly treated by civilian security personel.  Believe me, you'd be totally disgusted at some of the shit that goes on in your country under the guise of 'protection'  You might not get the exposes on TV over there, but we get to see them now and then, and Ill be frank, some of what I've seen horrifies me... cos some of the twats in power here seem to think it's acceptable behaviour

^ There's a good deal of truth in starkers' words...wait...WHAT!!! The thought of that actually terrifies me! 

For me the whole issue surrounding 'speech' and the freedom (or not) thereof is much simpler.  I see speech as either having constructive or destructive properties.  I believe one can completely and even vehemently disagree with someone else and yet ensure their speech doesn't devolve into destructive vitriol.  It is my view that 'hate speech laws' and others like it amount to not much more than a Band-Aid to the continual attempts in society to see just how destructive one can allow their speech / interaction with others to get before someone puts the brakes on.

Now going waaaay off topic........I see the real issues there being the loss of shame for one's own behavior (when inappropriate) that society has become all too familiar with, the ease with which we (all) seem to resort to destructive speech / behavior towards others and how accepting we are of the resulting enjoyment (schadenfreude) society seems to take from 'dismantling' each other (in terms of viewpoint or position).

I have to disagree, Seth.  Legislators thought civil forfeiture without due process was a good idea, too.

I consider those legislators and their legislation wrong.  "...or other improper classification"? WTH does that mean?  'Hate', or race/ethnicity/gender/etc-based motive can be an element of malice in adjudicating a crime, but we don't need laws criminalizing any speech based on offense perceived by the subject of said speech.  It's all or nothing here.  Canada was smart enough to repeal their hate speech laws a couple of years ago after they were simply used as a weapon to silence speech certain groups/individuals didn't like.  And Canada has no equivalent to 1st Amendment protections.

Crimes are crimes.  Inciting to or committing violence, whatever the motive, is a crime.  Speech is not a crime.

I'd be less worried about destructive speech, and how batshit insane the population of the planet is regarding PC bullshit.

I advocate the wholesale slaughter of radical islamists, and I'm berated for singling them out and calling them towel heads.  The unhealthy fixation on being politically correct little drones in the fascist collective apparently outweighs commentary over whether genocide or cavity searches at the airport is the proper solution to a problem.

You'll note in the quote of my previous post below there is nothing in support of 'PC bullshit' as you call it...

....in fact I suggested 'hate speech legislation' is akin to a Band-Aid 'solution' and reading between the lines the implication was there that I feel it doesn't achieve much other than maybe making society 'more PC'.  After all being 'PC' as you put it, is just finding a way to be 'destructive' in speech and / or behavior but doing so in such a manner as to not 'offend' the legalistic sensibilities of society at large.  Would it not be preferable to refrain from destructive speech/actions as much as possible from a 'humanitarian' perspective anyway?  That way you don't have to feel you're doing it to be 'PC'.

I mean isn't it destructive speech and actions in the first place that serve to 'radicalize' any/all individuals of any/all persuasion(s)?  Focusing on reducing the amount of destructive speech/action by anyone can only be seen as a positive.

I didn't say you were, just a suggestion that your priorities may be off.

Actually it's the one who presents derogatory comments (out of the blue) and hatred toward the groups previously delineated who is displaying 'fascistic' or better defined, intolerant or hateful conduct.

I could have edited your comments but chose not to do so. That shouldn't be misconstrued as agreement. They are in fact, repulsive. 

That has nothing to do with PC. That has everything to do with the selective invective which was exercised with discrimination towards a specific group of people because of their belief and dress. It should be specifically eschewed.

@Daiwa:

That means any other criteria devised to disenfranchise or set that group apart for hatred and encourage violence towards them...such as 'poor people', blondes, redheads, people with green eyes, people from Italy or wherever...I think that's the obvious meaning.

We don't because they are in place. HEY! We don't need anyone criminalizing yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, either, right?

The ability and intent to do harm is the criterion and it's a good one. The Constitution was NEVER meant to be a suicide or murder pact...