As of late I've heard the term "hate speech being thrown around a lot. So, my question is, doesn't the first amendment protect speech regardless of its emotional motivations?
This is one of the areas in which American jurisprudence and legislative postures are deeply screwed up.
It is a tangled knot, difficult to unravel in a short space, but lets see if we can manage to clarify things a bit.
Very broadly speaking, human linguistic utterances (speech) can serve any of several purposes. Most simplistically speaking, they can convey assertions of fact, or those of opinion. In my view, it is opinion that is most strongly protected by the 1A. Facts, too, are protected, but also encompass communications elements not generally found in opinions. Most particularly, fact-speech may readily convey messages of intent.
Therefore, there is a world of difference in the semantics of "I think Barack Obama is an America-hating scumbag" and "I am going to shoot Donald Trump". The former is opinion and is clearly protected by the 1A. The latter is a clear expression of intent, and while it may be a load of hot air, those in earshot of the utterance are well within their proper reason to assume the speaker is serious about and capable of carrying out that which is stated.
The place where the courts have truly pooched is the so-called "hate speech" issue. "Barack Obama is a nigger and should be lynched with piano wire from a tree" is a pretty good example of such speech. I think most of us would agree that it is not the nicest thing to say to, or about, anyone - even Obama. And yet, it is nonetheless an opinion, even if the precise formulation of the sentence is more akin to a statement of fact. But does errant grammar render an utterance criminal? For the most part, I very seriously doubt it. In fact, I am not convinced off the top of me head that any utterance is criminal. Risky, perhaps, but not criminal. For instance, if a stranger approaches me on the street while saying he is going to kill me, I do not take it as a criminal act. I do, however, regard it as a threat and might be moved to produce a pistol and shoot him. Regrettable as that outcome might be, another man communicated an intention to do me grave harm and I respond accordingly. The words are no crime, in sé, but express the intent to commit one upon my person, which places me in the position of having to choose between risking being harmed or acting to preempt it.
In such matters, the courts have failed with impossible spectacle. As far as I am concerned, ALL speech is protected. That does not, however, mean that all speech is safe. Some speech, such as that conveying threats, is risky. The courts recognize this, but only in limited fashion, having placed all manner of idiotic caveats and limitations on how a man can respond when threatened. Most of the nonsense seems to revolve around the "reasonable man" standard. I reject this mostly, in the belief that those who make utterances bear the onus of taking great care in the formulation of their sentences. Why do we think that men of yore spoke with such care and circumspection? It wasn't because they were imbeciles with pathological penchants for flowery talk, but because men were more equal in those days than they are today. In days gone long by, men settled their affairs between one another, even unto death. That is why one did not speak in cavalier fashion; after all, be might find himself on the wrong end of another man's sword.
Today, sadly, language has been so grossly discounted that few people take it seriously. Imagine that; the single most important skill that any human being ever learns is treated with such carelessness! Today, people routinely make noises with their mouths that 150 years ago would have gotten them killed. In my opinion, the world is very much the poorer for it.
A man should be able to say just about anything he pleases without fear of "law". However, he is not entitled to utter words without risk in the cases where they constitute physical threats to others. Likewise, I would say they are not protected from the consequences of defamation and libel. While those can also constitute threats, they are not immediately physical, but rather constitute attacks upon one's reputation, the results of which can be every bit as damaging as a knife wound.
This is why I advocate a return to true warrior culture. Were the race of men to do this, the world would become a far improved place over its current status as political dung-heap.
In.
My.
Opinion.