14 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The bolded part tells me free speech is protected for citizens with "grievances” against the government, but not necessarily citizens attacking other citizens. The government has a responsibility to protect all citizens. I agree that words are just words, no matter how hate-filled they are, and the KKK has just as much right to march down the street as christians do to have a Christmas parade.
 

When a member of an organization becomes radicalized by the beliefs of an organization and then acts out in violence, the influencers of that violence and organization should no longer be protected by the first amendment and be held accountable.

I’m not against narrowing the protection if a logical and workable definition can be defined. However, I don’t think that is possible. Give it a shot and let’s see. 

13 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

I’m not against narrowing the protection if a logical and workable definition can be defined. However, I don’t think that is possible. Give it a shot and let’s see. 

I’m not going to pretend to be a lawyer or qualified to write a workable definition of hate speech that would be court worthy. I also realize how slippery a slope it would be. I did look for a historical example and one that seemed to come often is this one:

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for "imminent lawless action.” Read More.
 

Brandenburg was never, that I could find, directly linked to a violent attack. But, HYPOTHETICALLY, if his kkk chapter had been found responsible for a church burning or murder. Do you think he should still be protected by freedom of speech even if he didn’t light the match, tie the noose or pull a trigger?

 

A more extreme and recent example is Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen who claimed to mentor by online contact with both "Underwear Bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmatullab and Fort Hood killer Nidal Hassan.

Does Anwar deserve 1st amendment protection since he didn’t strap a bomb to his junk or shoot anyone?

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-killing-anwar-al-aulaqi

9 hours ago, Toty said:

I think your interpretation is a nonsequitur.

Putting aside the other things in dispute, look at how the sentence is structured, with each part set apart by semicolons...

"Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This puts "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" right in with the grievances clause - which makes total sense.

"Free exercise of religion" isn't coupled with grievances, and speech was put in with press - which also makes sense.

 

As a side note, I'm curious if you're normally concerned with the original intentions of the founders. 

Fair enough. I do think original intentions are important.