Is hate speech really free?

Is etiquette a dead concept, or one only applicable to high society and/or institutions? Americans concerned for the health of their nation should embrace the notion of social respect, and civil behavior. I constantly hear about the founding fathers and their wishes for us, but rarely do I see references to the letters some of them wrote to posterity regarding the special care we should take, and the frailty of the government they initiated. It is easy to see the care they took in their writing, and the reverence for literacy itself. They did not choose their words for their convenience, they chose them for their specific definitions to clearly and perfectly communicate an idea. They lusted for the word and the intellectual freedom which it allows. This is something missing from those Americans who seem most vocally amorous of the Constitution and the founding fathers: Those who embrace it the most fervently, have the least amount of appreciation of the vehicle used to convey the ideas; language.
The sanctity of the written word is precious and worthy of protection. The freedom to communicate is also especially worth high regard, for it allows the process of democracy to flourish unabated. If we combine these two concepts, public debate of policy should be some of the most civil discussions on the planet. Speech has gone from an art form, and has become a tool.
The unscrupulous can also appreciate and utilize the word and it's limitless potential to move the hearts of man, they are only limited by their intelligence, not their scruples. Thus public discourse is split into communication or marketing. Communication is done to convey ideas such as news events, or how your day went; whereas marketing is undertaken purely to make others act in some way, like to buy some thing or vote some way. There are rules for marketing in advertisement, and there should be rules for marketing in propaganda to ensure that Americans have their other constitutional rights protected against the vitriolic expression of free speech. 
Hate speech; to be or not to be tolerated? The English language is a tool; the most proficient users of which are capable of conveying very specific communication of ideas and knowledge. Hate speech is easily differentiated from other types by it's very delivery, and it's words and their arrangement. Often times one can get the message across with words that do not constitute hate speech. Just because someone is not smart enough to use the appropriate verbiage to get a message across without inciting violence should not excuse the behavior. Public communication can and should be forced to be conducted civilly, and appropriately. Hate speech has no other purpose than to harm some group, and as such, deserves no place in the American public domain. Regrettably the Constitution is not specific enough in the description of this right. At the time the Constitution was written, our widely used brand of respect and public behavior was reserved for the dregs of society. Unfortunately they do not hold exclusive hold on crass, obviously incendiary language and behavior any longer. Now our entertainment personalities(whos industry began with the word) and politicians(whos original predecessors virtually worshiped the word) engage in rotten behavior in the guise of patriotism? Bah! I hope I'm not the only one that sees the malignant mutation of intent there.

Calling for, or inferring that violence or some illegal action be undertaken, describing a scenario wherein violence or an illegal action would be taken against anything or anyone should be considered hateful. Hate speech should only be allowed to spew forth directly from the mouth(for the sake of free speech only), any reproduction of it other than for individual personal use, should be a crime IMHO, but at the least it should be publicly prohibited.
Monitoring the incitement of violence via media can be accomplished in the same way as can telecommun­­ications for terrorist messages, or the airwaves for profanity and nudity. With catch phrases and allowable content, incitement of violence can be restricted­­. If Tipper Gore can bring about the regulation of profanity and nudity on movies and music, we can also regulate and label hateful opinion in the media. This would be done purely through word and phrase recognitio­­n and not by some partisan approach regarding source.

If Rush Limbaugh thinks the Arizona shooting spree of Jan 2011 was helped along by music, then he would logically support censoring of content which could potentiall­y incite violence from broadcast media wouldn't he?

I say we classify media by the amount of opinion contained therein.
Class A: Zero opinion, 100% boring news straight off the wire without content editing. See CSPAN

Class B: Minor, discussion based op-ed. Non-partis­an disseminat­ion of the news.
See CNN

Class C: Unrestrict­ed opinion and partisan rhetoric allowed. No hate, profanity, porn. See FOX, MSNBC

Class D: Totally unrestrict­ed content, membership, age appropriat­e verificati­on required.
No examples come to mind, but this would classify most fringe group rhetoric not suitable for any of the above categories­.

In much the same way as music, TV and movies have ratings systems, so should media news. Since hate speech is protected by the Constituti­onal freedom of speech, the next best tactic is to use one that worked before in the face of the same protection­s. Although hate is deplorable, freedom is not, and protecting our freedoms is an American pastime(sort of); hate by it's very nature robs others of their freedom. Should we allow hate to run rampant in our nation in order to loosely protect one right while infringing upon another? Do we sit and scratch our heads at the problem or do we actively seek a resolution? I say that true freedom cannot abide hate. What say you?
I wonder what Dee Snider thinks about this topic?