You will never have my support to squash free speech no matter how hateful or vile it is.
The great thing about the 1st Amendment is that the average citizen is allowed to speak their minds with only a few very specific exceptions.
The Supreme Court set up these strict exceptions in various cases, but the 1964 case Brandenburg v. Ohio directly tackles the type of speech that you are very frustrated about. They ruled that speech can only be criminalized if it incites an "imminent lawless action."
We may not like the hateful things people say, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to say them.
This is a bit off topic, but it should be noted that Citizen's United was about Hillary The Movie in 2008. From Wikipedia:
Hillary: The Movie is a 2008 political documentary about United States Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It was produced by the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United. The film was scheduled to be offered as video-on-demand on cable TV right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008, but as "electioneering communication" to do so was illegal under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which was enforced by the Federal Election Commission. The producers went to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to get a declaration that they could show their movie and promotional ads for it despite BCRA. This case was titled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and its final decision at the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in a major change in campaign finance law.
The documentary interviewed various conservative figures such as Dick Morris and Ann Coulter and reviewed various scandals in which Hillary Clinton participated in, such as the White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, Whitewater controversy, and cattle future controversy. The factual finding of the three-judge district court was that there was "no reasonable interpretation [of the movie] other than as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton", thus making it "electioneering communication". The Supreme Court did not change that decision, but in a more far-reaching way declared that corporations could not be banned from making electioneering communications.
Many things can be legislated but this is a little crazy.
Chet above you typed: to carry out his....... perhaps / her would be a good idea, or their ....... problem solved. Hopefully he, him, his won't be automatic when discussing the top office.
I was probably thinking about Obama and all the hateful racist rhetoric and characterchers that hit the internet when he was sworn in for the first time. That was for sure my reason for bringing it up now. I was in the Navy for four years and that was living void of all constitutional rights and it worked good to run an organization. Disrespect breeds contempt.