And we continue to elect those to congress who have no grasp or knowledge of our constitution. Cardin is the senior United States senator from Maryland, a seat he has held since 2007. Apparently in his position representing the good people of Maryland, he's learned nothing of our constitution.

Hate speech is any speech, conduct, writing, or expression that may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a particular individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a particular individual or group. Hate speech can take many forms, including name-calling, slurs, or other derogatory language or behavior that is intended to demean or degrade someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristics.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is a cornerstone of American democracy and is one of the fundamental rights that Americans enjoy.

However, the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech. For example, it does not protect speech that incites violence or lawless action, or that constitutes a true threat. Hate speech can fall into these categories, as it may incite violence or prejudicial action against a particular group and can be threatening to members of that group.

As a result, hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression, it does not protect expression that is intended to harm or intimidate others based on their identity. Governments, schools, and other organizations can take steps to prevent hate speech and address its impact, while still respecting the right to freedom of expression.

It is important to note from the article - The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Indeed, the language was explained most succinctly by Justice Hugo Black in Smith v. California: “I read ‘no law . . . abridging’ to mean no law abridging.”

While the court has distinguished “fighting words,” criminal threats and other narrow categories, it does not bestow the government the open right to strip protection of speech that it deems “hateful.”

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/31/sen-cardin-hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-first-amendment/