freedom of speech, tool or weapon?

Our first amendment gives us the right express ourselves freely, but in many cases it seems that it is a double edged sword. Yes, people should have the right to voice there opinions, but there is a thin line between protecting that right and taking that right away from others at the same time. I could agree that the opinions of a klu klux klan member would be offensive to most. but that most is not all, and those with opinions no matter how ignorant they are have the  right to promote and support there beliefs. Examples of this was in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case of 1969. Brandenburg was tried ans convicted for violating Ohio's criminal syndicalism law. This law states that a person is not allowed to act in dangerous or violent ways to accomplish political reform.
    Soon after conviction, the judgment was over turned. His first amendment right of freedom of speech saved him from conviction,  calling his racist banter was  merely  "advocacy".
I asked myself the same question as the writer asks on page 118." Does hate speech deserve the same constitutional protection as other forms of speech?" and these were my conclusions:
Yes and no:
     ignorance in large quantities has proven to ultimately to do more harm than good by protecting there right to "hate Speech" through out history. During the civil rights movement, the ideas that African Americans were sub-human lead to lynchings, burning of churches and homes and many deaths from both civilians and police forces. It was wide spread, and yes something that had been around since the days of slavery, but why go through a civil war and many amendments  to not back it up years later?
     Though i do and will always think that ignorance is pointless, how can you differentiate harmful from "in fun" forms of racist on a constitutional level? for those of you that like comedy, how many have laughed at a comedian saying a stereotypical joke about another race? i am not ashamed that i have whether it was white, black, Asian, or whatever but i also know my stand on these issues. But where can we draw that line to what is comfortable and what is over the line? Yes there is a big difference from saying that "all n* should go to Africa, and all Jews to Israel" as Brandonburg did. But its not a far cry from you tube videos like " the amazing racist" that push the point of comedy at anothers expense to dangerous heights. This could open old wounds or make it okay to go to neighborhoods and openly slap a culture in the face. But i would feel offended if things like amazing racist were censored.
    So its understandable why it may be hard to uphold with out down grading others. The line between the good and the bad is thin.  Banning hate speech cant be broken down with out infringing our rights but allowing people to say what ever they want to bring out those feelings of hate in others is dangerous for the people under fire. Being bi-racial may have aided in my thoughts about the harm and harmless of crime of the speech. But it is our right, and i hope that if it were to get to a dangerous level that we the people would acknowledge and correct it with our states and government.