Hate speech in and of itself is definitely protected- only hate speech that has the characteristics of incitement, threats, or meeting a certain threshold of harassment or disturbing the peace, slander, discrimination etc. is not. Hate speech more often has those characteristics for sure, but it has to break the law in a way that isn't exclusive to the hatefulness of the speech. And it's a good way to get yourself a stiffer sentence or fine. I think we're in a pretty good spot on hate speech despite all of the awful things that slip by legally. Liberal demands on corporate speech are interestingly at odds with liberal distrust of corporate control and personhood. Something to consider I think. We'll make speechmasters of them yet if we're not careful. We can demand a certain standard from them, and then they'll apply it to us in turn. It may not be what we want. Another reason to unionize, so we have some say in the consequences. I don't know what you mean with your jurisprudence point. We're all arguing about what kinds of legal speech we want to "allow" and normalize, and it doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment. We have to argue about our values of free expression. So when somebody brings up the first amendment when it doesn't apply, perhaps they are crudely saying that they believe in free speech absolutism in the non-legal, public environment. I don't know. Those people are usually all mixed up in the head. If they want to argue about what we should encourage and discourage, what we should ignore and what we should punish socially and economically, etc, then fine. It just doesn't have anything to do with the Bill of Rights, other than the government can't stop us from have those discussions. But there's no authority to appeal to when the first amendment doesn't apply.