Here is an interesting article related to this: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threat...
There is a mistaken assumption that hate speech is illegal. In the US, it isn’t illegal. Speech that contains a specific threat of violence would be illegal — but such threats have to be specific.
There is a song by the band Type O Negative called “Kill all the white people” and the first line of the song is “kill all the white people and then we’ll be free.”
That song is hate speech and promotes violence against white people — but it isn’t illegal.
Even speech promoting overthrowing the government is also protected as is speech calling for killing police or raping people.
Disgusting stuff sure — but not illegal speech.
If you consider things like the "blood libel" hate speech (back when antisemitism was rampant in Europe, there were very popular myths spread by people that Jews would kill Christian children and consume their blood for esoteric rituals), then his overture is full of them. From "Muslims cheered in Jersey while watching the 9/11 attacks" to "You have to kill the families of terrorists" to “If you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and on their minds, we’re going to have to do something.” (how do you see hatred and death in someone's eyes or minds? It's clearly promoting the hatred of Muslim people because they apparently leave mosques wanting to kill you) to (again about Muslims) “There's a sickness. They're sick people. There's a sickness going on. There's a group of people that is very sick.” to the story he told about killing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood as an effective means of stopping terrorism to “They're going to have to turn in the people that are bombing the planes. And they know who the people are. And we're not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft.”
I mean, is any one of those statements literally "I hate Muslims"? No.
But is spreading lies that Muslims leave mosques with "hate in their eyes and minds" and that Muslims cheered for 9/11 and that Muslims are sick and twisted people and that Muslims are willfully hiding terrorists and not respecting America, etc etc. and that all this (all these false things) need to be stopped no matter what the cost (kill the family members of suspects, dip bullets in pigs blood etc), is all that not promoting hatred? Is the effect of that speech not exactly the same as the effect of hate speech?
source for all statements: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/donald-trump-mexico-...
It would be inconsistent with the principle of free speech to sanction certain things from being said in public. Even racist, offensive and blatantly stupid bullshit (like your example) should not be censored.
The reason for this is because, paradoxically, if we assume that people are capable of rational discussion and debate they will eventually see where their beliefs or statements were in error through their reasoning.
To borrow my previous analogy, _hate-speech_ laws are akin to telling a child to: "obey; because I am your father" as opposed to people self-correcting their ethics through open debate and questioning.
I think it's pretty obvious that many people aren't capable of that.
The other issue, which is perhaps more relevant here, is illegal content. Are you saying, for example, that it shouldn't be illegal for someone to put posters up on every street corner in their town saying that Mexicans are all child molestors and should be shot? Where should the line be drawn?