Well, again that goes back to Jefferson's longstanding debate over what would constitute actual harm.
In other words, at what point can the law say "Such and such happened because this person said something that was inflammatory and incited violence" or something to that effect. It was all in really interesting book about him and his letters by Allan Dershowitz.
I'm somewhat torn in the middle. On the one hand, I really don't like censorship and you can't police how people think or want to express themselves. At the same time, there really should be consequences for open hate speech and other inflammatory actions that serve no purpose other than to express hate and harm others. But that in itself can be a tricky thing - hate crimes are generally very hard to prove specifically because you can't just go and state that someone was genuinely feeling a certain way when they did something.