@vy "Where does it say in the Constitution people have a right to be free of a hostile environment at work? Can't they just change jobs?"

14th amendment. While individuals are free to hold and express bigoted ideals all they want on their own time and property, when such actions deny protected classes access to basic society, (i.e. whites-only towns, racist hiring/housing practices, hostile work environments, etc.), then civil rights are balanced against speech rights in favor of equal protection.

"What if the cross burning is in front of my house or in public?"
If it's on your property, you're free to deny them access and (in most states) remove them by force.
If it's on public property, the local government is free to restrict such speech based on neutral time and place restrictions (like permitting for parades).
If it's on the protester's private property, they're free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

"What if the radio attacks on me or people like me *causes* violent attacks or just gives me well founded fear of an attack?"
Then the people perpetrating the violence are the ones at fault, not the person talking on the radio.
Unless the person on the radio meets the very narrow Brandenburg v. Ohio standard for criminal incitement.
As for your fear of being attacked, that's simply not a standard upon which legal action can be enacted, because it's inherently subjective.

"Should the owners/workers and patrons of Comet Pizza have just moved?"
No, they have a right to be free from violence. But they don't have a right to be free from criticism, no matter how outlandish or stupid that criticism is.

@LouisIngenthron
"No, they have a right to be free from violence. But they don't have a right to be free from criticism, no matter how outlandish or stupid that criticism is."

Are you saying a guy with an AR-15 showing up and shooting his way into the building because the radio told him that children were being abused inside is "criticism"?

@vy If that's your understanding of what I wrote, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

@LouisIngenthron The reality is that what ACLU and apparently you claim is protected speech deprives the targets of equal protection of the laws and it is factually incorrect to claim that such speech is simply expression of repugnant points of view. There is no difference in principle between hate speech on public airwaves and in a mall or workplace.

@vy If I can't persuade you on principled grounds, maybe I can try perspective.

If you choose to give the state the power to punish speech that one group feels threatened by, you're giving your opponents the power to censor you.

When someone like Donald Trump is in power, who do you think laws criminalizing hate speech will be used against? White supremacists, or BLM protesters?

There's a reason we don't allow subjective speech restrictions in this country.
From SCOTUS's Per Curiam opinion in Brandenburg v Ohio:
"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

@LouisIngenthron
"If you choose to give the state the power to punish speech that one group feels threatened by, you're giving your opponents the power to censor you."

So you are now against allowing the government to enforce laws against harassment in the workplace? After all, there is nothing to stop Trump or Desantis from criminalizing wearing a rainbow shirt or telling your colleagues that you are a Democrat or that you think racism is systemic or ...
There is no magic formula here.

@LouisIngenthron We know that Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and Hate radio *is* directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless because *it has produced lawless action*. That guy with the AR15 at Comet Pizza, the man who attacked Paul Pelosi, the people who terrorized the Newton parents were incited by hate radio/Tucker/Jones etc by their own testimony.

@LouisIngenthron To focus on federal government suppression of speech ignores state/local, corporate, and community suppression of speech. If people have reasonable fear that they will be targeted, they will be reluctant to speak.