[bduerst]

That's because, unlike other countries, the US Supreme Court doesn't define speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group as "hate speech".

That specific type of imminent danger speech and it's expression are not protected by first amendment rights. It's right there in your Brandenbug v. Ohio.

[manfredo]

The above commenter wrote that hate speech was illegal. This is not correct. I'm not sure what you think I'm missing here. The bar for speech to be inciting imminent lawless action is pretty high:

> Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them.

This was determined to be protected speech under the First Amendment.