There is no general hate speech exception to 1A, which means that hate speech is protected speech.

[hlthe2b]

3. FIRST TWEET--totally unadorned: "THIS IS PROTECTED SPEACH" and that was IT

even if they are going by the 140 character rules, this could have been accompanied by a truthful comment on exceptions. DO YOU REALLY THINK that the first comment will not be the one everyone reads and disseminates--just like all the BS about the Second Amendment that has now been all but official shortened to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," totally ignoring the preceding statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

No, this is irresponsible. Officious sources and others need to think about how they construct comments on Twitter and the damage potential of not being absolutely clear to a very uninformed public (percentage-wise). Given I have seen many DUers argue the first part of the 1st amendment comment, ignoring the exceptions, I think it is a problem here TOO.

BTW, that Twitter user is just as likely an RWer WANTING to confuse the issue and thus constructed his initial tweet as he/she did, as anyone else. It is a Twitter handle and NOT apparently associated with an official group seeking to inform or educate on the constitution (and who would have undoubtedly made sure to add the necessary context from the start), despite its name.