I would remind you that only peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Advocating for violence is not. Nor can you say that you want to kill the President.
From wiki:
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[30] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[31] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[32][33]
One legal commentator has suggested that, along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if the speaker intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[34] However, the United States Supreme Court has not implemented such an exception, and even if it does, the exception would be probably be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[35] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[36] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[37]
Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[38] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[39][40] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[41] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[42]
So I have shown that you are wrong, hate speech can be prohibited.
Germans Aren’t Surprised By The Recent Violence Of America’s White NationalistsThey’ve seen the symbols that were on display in Charlottesville before, and they know where they lead.Sebastian Christ
MUNICH ― To Germans, it is no surprise that right-wing violence is escalating in America and that the president for days appeared unwilling to explicitly condemn the racists responsible for the death of a young woman during a far-right demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia.
In Germany, commentators from even the most conservative media organizations now argue the U.S. is moving away from democracy under President Donald Trump; that the president has become, in the words of one well-known sociologist, “the standard-bearer” for white supremacists.
“We are not dealing with a normal politician, but ... with something like a totalitarian ruler,” Harald Welzer, a sociologist, told a well-regarded German radio program on Monday. “We know this kind of politics from the 20th century. We didn’t expect its return in the 21st century.”
There’s little equivocation here, in part because of Germany’s historical relationship to symbols on display in Charlottesville: the swastika, the torches and the slogans.
History here casts a long shadow. As The Economist rightly observed this week, in Germany, “Relativisation, endorsement by hint or omission, far-right symbols as ‘irony’, dog-whistle prevarications and creeping extenuation are rarely tolerated.”
A lesson from the horrors of Nazi rule in Germany is that there is a direct line from totalitarian speech to open violence. Hannah Arendt wrote about it in The Origins of Totalitarianism, and Victor Klemperer, in his book Language of the Third Reich, has portrayed the brutalization of language during the Nazi regime.
In Germany, this belief has led to laws which at times seem odd to foreigners. But they are justified by history: Never again will totalitarian ideas dominate our political discourse.
While we, too, are in favor of freedom of speech, the denial of the Holocaust is forbidden, as is incitement of hatred, which is punishable by up to five years in prison. Many of the demonstrators in Charlottesville would have fallen afoul of this law in Germany.
The public display of Nazi flags or regalia is forbidden, and even antique dealers must cover any swastikas on display. Nazi salutes are also forbidden, as two Chinese tourists recently learned: They were arrested after making the salute in front of the Reichstag building in Berlin. (A drunken American tourist got even swifter justice when a passerby punched him as he gave several stiff-armed salutes in downtown Dresden on Sunday.)
Right-wing populists, not unknown in Germany, have on occasion criticized some of these laws, referring to them as a “thought-policing.”
But, so far, public opinion hasn’t turned in their favor.
And even to those who advocate stricter controls on immigration, extreme-right symbols are a taboo.
The line between the right and the far right is like a firewall and, in Germany, it’s our democracy that holds it up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/germany-reaction-to-charlottesville_us_59922bf4e4b08a247276c42d