How about quote the specific language which you claim "was intended to incite violence". Or, at least, cite it with sufficient specificity so that we know what you are talking about. So far, we don't. Cite the website, show the text.
Also, you said, " Hate Speech isn't protected by any constitutional provision or amendment and it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence."
I'm glad to see you so brazenly invent foolish legal claims. I am unaware that the term "hate speech" has ANY consistent definition, let alone a legal definition sufficiently specific to be able to conclude that it "isn't protected by any constitutional provision or amendment".
Actually, whatever you think "hate speech" is, it's almost certainly protected by the 1st Amendment. See the Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
"Per curiam opinion[edit]The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[3] and articulated a new test – the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:
…Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
× If you genuinely believe " it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence.", you need to cite specific precedent which applies your choice of terms, "incite violence" to a 1st-Amendment guaranteed speech. As per Brandenburg v. Ohio, you are on very thin rhetorical ice.
Jim Bell
From: Razer