Unique among courts in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended broad protection in the area of hate speech—abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing

                        - - -

'Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence…

The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech.'

…..saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.'

NYT . Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech' June 12, 2008

However the article goes on….

'Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
"It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack."

Joel Feinberg, the American political and social philosopher,.
suggested we also need an 'offense principle' that can act as a guide to public censure

Perhaps public censure is the only way to respond in this kind of forum as rational argument and discussion is fruitless against name calling and insults.