You are making stuff up. "hate speech" is not a thing in the first amendment. Hate speech is protected. There are countless court rulings on this.

Exhibit A: "in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents."

WP article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Do you have a source? I'd be surprised to hear that's the case. My understanding was the first amendment covered all speech.

You are right, "hate speech" was not the right term to use.

That said, there absolutely are types of speech that the First Amendment doesn't cover:

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiativ...

>>In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently.

As I understand it, "fighting words" is _very_ context-dependent and narrow in modern jurisprudence.

See https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-... and search for "Trope seven".

In particular, application of "fighting words" pretty much requires that the speaker and listener were in close physical proximity, such that a fight could actually occur. Not really relevant to twitter, for the most part.

It does cover all speech; racial and ethnic epithets are still covered, just not in a very specific context. Which never applies in Twitter.

The First Amendment does protect hate speech. However, Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment.