The context he was referencing is a case of fraud. Fraud is not protected by the first amendment.
I did say in my post that he could've communicated better. He said is correct in that there are limitations to free speech. Hate speech isn't specifically not protected but if that speech incites violence, or threatens people then said speech isn't necessarily protected.
But if we want to play this game let me quote Donald Trump.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote.
Donald Trump is on record as being in favor of suspending all rules, regulations, and articles including the Constitution based on some sort of arbitrary conditions that he defined.