> the criminalization of threats can be used to justify the criminalization of hate speech

This doesn't make sense to me. The reason threats are only illegal when they are "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"[1] is because of 1A.

Hate speech isn't well defined. As the GP stated, some may say that abortion is murder. To others, it is hateful to suggest they don't own their bodies. Same argument can be made for trans, gays, etc.

Disallowing speech like, "Kill all Christians! They're ruining our nation." doesn't incite people to imminent, lawlessness. There is a massive jump mentally the reader must make to transform that statement into action.