Intimidation, harassment, and attempts to harm individuals are not protected speech. If they were, cross burning would be protected speech as well. See, for example
Virgina v. Black; quoting from the Wikipedia article: "
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion stating, 'a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." In so doing, the Court considered the speech to be constitutionally unprotected 'true threats. Under that carve-out, "a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.'"
I always shake my head when seeing people smugly trotting out the "trying to get people fired is protected free speech too" argument. Don't they realize they're trying the same arguments that cross-burners tried in courts and failed at? Moreover, don't they realize what using having to use cross-burners' legal arguments to defend their desire to freely intimidate individuals looks like to an outsider from a moral perspective? If free speech proponents are forgetting things, well, they're not the only ones.