Funny, then, that the ACLU has won multiple lawsuits (approximately all of them as far as I know) defending exactly racist speech. Skokie was probably the most contentious. The "imminent lawless action" standard is much higher than you're suggesting (see, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana).

Indeed, college campuses have tried unsuccessfully to use the "imminent lawless action" defense against Richard Spencer, and been refuted: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/01/18/richard-spencer-michigan-state-

university/1044354001/. (The solution was mediated, but the judge wouldn't have ordered mediation if racist speech was automatically incitement--nobody was pretending that Spencer's speech wasn't going to be racist.)

Anyway, as a matter of law, you're simply wrong.

You're wrong as a matter of morality, too, but that's a trickier argument, and might go the other way in a context where there is no right to rebut. But the law is plenty clear. You, not the courts, unilaterally decided that "being a racist incites and produces imminent lawless action". Courts have already considered that idea and rejected it.