Unlike the
Chaplinsky case above, DWOC's action is not directed at a single individual. Generally, I believe ('cause I don't have the time to research right now) it is okay to make hateful statements (for ex. burning the flag) as long as it is not aimed at an individual.
As I understand it, and as demonstrated by the case you cite, hateful speech akin to "fighting words" is not protected i.e. where someone is using hate speech to specifically provoke an individual or defined group. In
Chaplinsky, the individual was not being charged for what he said in the public square, but, rather for the remarks directed at the arresting officer.
Holding that the statute's use of the term "offensive speech" was not vague or overbroad, the SC said (quoting,an earlier decision):
"The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . [S]uch words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace."
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U. S. 568 :: Volume 315 :: 1942 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
DWOC's actions are hateful, but - I believe - unless they create an actual breach of the peace or are an attempt to incite an
imminent (read immediate and actual - like yelling fire in a crowded theater) breach of the peace, they are protected.