Is it "Politically Correct"...

I think that actually summarizes things relatively well.From my understanding, making slurs, insults, racist statements, etc. is still protected speech as it pertains to the First Amendment. As you indicated, making a direct threat against an individual or group is what essentially crosses the line. But ultimately, just a standard verbal statement regarding someone or some group does not in an of itself constitute a crime.In other countries, it is different. Canada for example (where I grew up) actually has laws in place regarding what types of speech might land you in trouble from a legal standpoint. Don't recall all the details, but certain statements against specific ethnic groups and minorities can result in in certain legal ramifications. To note, in most cases I am aware of, the result is usually a fine. There is a wikipedia page that outlines some of the hate speech laws in Canada:Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia

Faith, I found this link that I think might be able to shed some light on the topic:http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/...-protect-hate-speech.htmlThe key quote from the article that provides some clarity is as follows:

quote:

---

In 1942, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words, or statements that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)). In later decisions, the Court narrowed this exception by honing in on the second part of the definition: direct, personal insults that are so offensive they’re likely to provoke their specific target to respond immediately with violence. The Court has also said that laws can’t prohibit only some types of fighting words, like those based on racial bias (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)).

---

I'll freely admit that I am not lawyer. So I can't speak to the all the permutations when it comes to what speech is protected and what isn't. And I don't know enough about the platform of various hate groups. But my suspicion is that they will often choose their words carefully to be able to straddle the line as it pertains to hate speech but not fully cross it. For the two quotes you provided:"We advocate the killing of Jews" - Technically, I believe this falls into the purview it being an insult, but not necessarily one that will immediately provoke a reaction. Also, the use of the word 'advocate' makes it more ambiguous."Our platform is to defend white culture and kill Jews." - This one is tricky because from my opinion, that is a direct threat. So if that is a statement they are making, verbally or in print, that may violate hate speech laws.The above article does provide links to actual court cases and any precedents that were set. So hopefully that can shed some light on things. But it is a grey area to be sure.