The chair is a metaphor for Obama. In the south, they used to hang black people 'who didn't know their place' from trees to keep other black people in their place (subservient to whites). Hanging the chair from a tree is nothing but a metaphor for hanging Obama from a tree because he is a black man who has moved beyond his station and needs to be put back in line. It is a vile and hateful metaphor which uses imagery from some of the darkest most shameful times in our republic.

Opposing this speech is something that I would think any decent not racist person would do. Suggesting that opposing this kind of speech is infringement is something a racist would do. I have read nothing about any legal penalty that this man has faced for his hateful speech. If he faced a legal penalty I would hope that any american concerned with the our constitutional right to free speech would take the position that such legal action was contrary to his rights and petition the government to back down.

You care enough about the guy to say "Calling it "hate speech" is infringing on the first and setting the guy up for expensive harassment." At no point have you suggested that you think the guys metaphor is offensive and hateful. You have however said that speech leveled in opposition to his speech is infringing on his constitutional rights. I only see you defending bigotry and opposing voices that oppose bigotry.

Hiring black people to work for you isn't charity, it's just a financial transaction, it doesn't prove one way or the other whether you are a bigot. My grandpa and father did a lot of bushiness with black people, had em over the house, went to the bar with them and both of them were still racist. Your position that opposing hateful speech is infringement upon the speaker sounds like an extra legal defense of bigotry to me.