Tag Archives: fighting words

Should hate speech be punished similarly to fighting words?

Throughout history, our world has struggled for rightful speech freedoms from the government. Fortunately, the United States created the First Amendment in 1791 which generally ruled freedom of speech; with such a limitless topic, our country set certain restrictions regarding speech. Obscenity, slander, commercial speech, and fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment, meaning that people are at risk for punishment if caught committing one of these restrictions. Among these restrictions, uncertainty has arisen regarding logistics of what is encompassed by such broad topics. One topic of doubt is whether hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment or treated similarly to fighting words. Specifically, hate speech threatens a certain group based on prejudice through speech or writing. Fighting words express an intention to act upon threatening words or challenge someone. One legal instance differentiating between hate speech and fighting words was the National Socialist Party vs. the Village of Skokie. In this case, the NSPA wished to hold a white power demonstration in various villages in Illinois. Officially, their demonstrations and Nazi promotions were not ruled fighting words because the party did not openly discuss an intention to act upon their beliefs. Although their swastikas and overall message were considered hate speech, the party was still allowed to march due to the First Amendment’s protection of speech and symbols. Since fighting words can put one at risk for punishment, many people wonder whether hate speech should risk penalty due to the similarities.

The lack of regulation for hate speech created an abundance of openly expressed prejudice and tension throughout the United States. Since the First Amendment protects hate speech, people are legally allowed to spread hatred and derogatory terms towards specific groups of people. I believe that this limitless ability to overtly spread prejudice resentment towards others must be regulated by law and punished similarly to fighting words in court. Obviously, the transition between hate speech and fighting words is a very slippery slope; the only difference being the speaker’s intentions. If someone is comfortable enough to openly degrade groups of people, he or she must be comfortable enough to act upon their superiority sentiment. Furthermore, hate speech typically generalizes a group of innocent people and threatens each member of said group. With such a broad target, the risk of hate speech becoming fighting words expands immensely. Since hate speech and fighting words are difficult to distinguish between, the judicial system must rule based on solely viewpoint and opinions regarding hate speech and its protection under the First Amendment. This essay by Adrienne Stone further explores the problematic method on which the court bases its decisions regarding hate speech versus fighting words. Ultimately, differentiating between the legality of hate speech and fighting words is difficult to do accurately. Due to the likeness of the two, fighting words and hate speech should be treated alike in court and not protected by the First Amendment.

“Definition Of HATE SPEECH”. Merriam-Webster.Com, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech.

Fas.Org, 2019, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.

“{{Meta.Pagetitle}}”. {{Meta.Sitename}}, 2019, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

Stone, Adrienne. “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech.” Constitutional Commentary, vol. 32, no. 3, Fall 2017, pp. 687–696. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,geo,url,cpid&custid=s7324964&geocustid=s7324964&db=aph&AN=126502719&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
US Legal, Inc. “Hate Speech Law And Legal Definition | Uslegal, Inc.”. Definitions.Uslegal.Com, 2019, https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/.


Hate Speech; Can it be good?

IS/should Hate Speech be protected under the First Amendment. To begin Hate Speech is defined as, “Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as, race, religion, sex, ethnicity, origin, etc…” As of right now Hate Speech is protected by the Constitution under the first amendment. This means the government can not put you in jail, fine you, etc… for Hate Speech, unless you are calling for violence/ Fighting Words. I believe this is the way it should be because people should be able to express their beliefs and opinions. Also, once some of our free speech rights get taken away it’s only a matter of time before they all do.

An example of someone trying to take away Free Speech is the recent court case of Matal v. Tam. In this case a band was trying to register their name, The Slants, with the U.S. Trademark Office they were originally turned down because it was seen as offensive toward Asian people, but after they took it to court the band ended up winning because under the first amendment they were protected.

Another example of someone being protected to express their opinion would be the court case of  Snyder v. Phelps . In this case the Westboro Baptist church went to a military funeral and posted signs and chanted anti-gay statements. The family sued and won 5 million in composition for emotional distress, but the Westboro Baptist Church was granted the right to keep protesting under the first amendment.

Altho, there are cases where people cross a line, Hate Speech should still be protected under our rights so people can express themselves as long as it never escalates  into fighting words and calls for violence.

Hate Speech- Rules and Regulations?

The right to express oneself is guaranteed under the first amendment of the constitution. However, should offensive and demeaning expression be allowed in public institutions, such as college campuses and schools?

There are already some limits placed on the freedom of expression, such as the restraint of using fighting words. Fighting words are the language used to incite violence and put others in danger. A category of fighting words is hate speech or speech that demeans any minority group. Because demeaning speech is such a subjective term,  penalizing those who abuse their first amendment rights can be quite difficult. In March 1989, UW Madison passed its hate speech code, which allowed anyone who displayed “discriminatory… behavior directed at individuals that intentionally demean[s]” or “create[d] an intimidating or hostile environment for education” to be disciplined.

In 2016, a fan attended a UW Madison football game wearing a costume depicting President Obama wearing a noose. Other students, offended by the costume, took to social media and tweeted the image and caught the attention of the university. UW Madison asked the fan to remove the “offensive parts of the costume”, but there was no information to point that this request was a result of a violation of the hate speech code. The fan, however, did report to removes the offensive parts of his costume.

Although hate speech and fighting words are still an ambiguous concept, colleges, like UW Madison, have been able to put regulations on what they have determined to be hate speech through various plans and drafts. Public institutions should input their own codes to the best of their ability and be open to change in order to best serve their students.

Speech Codes: Are They a Scourge or a Savior to Free Speech?

Many people know the First Amendment: the right to expression, the right to peacefully assemble, freedom of the press, the right to petition the government, etcetera. However, not many people know where the boundaries of these rights lie. People push these boundaries all the time and right now college campuses are but one example. Administrators at colleges are attempting to enforce speech codes. Yet, does enforcing speech codes violate the right to free expression described in the First Amendment? How far can speech codes go before the contradict the rights to free expression and peaceful protesting described in the First Amendment?

There are many ways speech codes could be enforced. But depending on how they are applied, they could break the First Amendment. A few forms of expression, specifically in regards to free speech, that are not protected by the First Amendment are slander or libel, fighting words, and obscenity. This means that someone can not go in front of a crowd and defame, insult, threaten, or say anything that may be considered hate speech to someone without consequences. One example of hate speech can be seen in a video of Milo Yiannopoulous at UW Milwaukee. In this video, he verbally attacked and degraded a transgender student. They still were spoken with no point other than to make fun of a subject and way of life that Yiannopoulous did not agree with. Another example of hate speech and fighting words is threats. As stated by Ben Shapiro, some people “greeted the birth of [his] second child by calling for [him, his] wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber”. There was no purpose to this statement other than to express a disagreement with his religion. Under the First Amendment, hate speech is not something you can say without consequences. Speech Codes cannot be used to prevent speakers with controversial opinions from speaking. They cannot prevent people from peacefully disagreeing and debating about topics. However, speech codes can apply consequences if that speech becomes hateful or slanderous since that speech would no longer be protected under the First Amendment.

Some Speech Codes are also attempting to limit the student’s right to peacefully protest a speaker. The First Amendment specifically says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. To restrict the right to peacefully assemble is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Yet, as seen on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website, also known as FIRE, some college campuses are restricting the student’s rights to peacefully assemble and protest on the grounds that they are disrupting the speaker’s right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act states that “protests and demonstrations that interfere with the expressive rights of others are subject to sanction”. There must be a line drawn as to what qualifies as disruptive and interfering demonstrations. The line is whether or not there is any form of violence or hate speech. If a protester simply said the speaker was wrong, held signs, and argued about right versus wrong, nothing can be done about it because they are protesting peacefully, as the First Amendment says they can. However, if a protestor started doing damage or cursing out the speaker, then they would have to face consequences. Recently at UC Berkeley, protesters became very violent at a speech by Yiannopoulous and had to be escorted off the premises. UC Berkeley encompasses what a protest that is not protected by the First Amendment is, and what Speech Codes can restrict.

In the end, Speech codes can be useful to make speeches more peaceful and clearly define punishments for breaking that peace, however, they must still subject to the First Amendment.


EBSCO: The New Battle Over Campus Free Speech

Milo Yiannopoulos verbally attacks a transgender student (1:30-3:05)

The Atlantic: The Glaring Evidence That Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus

Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act

A few examples of Hate Speech against Ben Shapiro

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

UC Berkeley

Hate Speech or Free Speech?


hate speech

According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”. For years now, there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not “hate speech” is protected under the First Amendment. That is the issue at hand. Now, hate speech is not officially recognized to have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. However, many people recognize hate speech as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.   

Many U.S. Commentators claim that there is a “hate speech” exception in the First Amendment. But American law professor Eugene Volokh has brought to many people’s attention that these exceptions to the First Amendment do not apply to hate speech. However, they do apply to “fighting words”. Words that are used to place the target of the words in direct danger or harm are not protected by the First Amendment. For example, one may condemn the Klu Klux Klans ideals and views, but unless they act on their ideals, legally they are protected by the First Amendment.  If the Klu Klux Klan did act upon their ideals/say they are going to act upon them, then they would be considered fighting words. Long ago, in the court case  of Schenck v. U.S., the supreme court decided that freedom of speech or the freedom of press could be limited if the words created a “clear a present danger”. This rule seems to still be widely used today pertaining freedom of speech.

Although I think some of the things people believe/think are horrible and unfair, technically they are allowed to express these ideals that they have. Even if you d0 not  agree with another’s ideals, we are indeed a free society. Being a free society means everyone has the right to express their ideals no matter how horrible they may seem to you. As long as they do not act upon their ideals in a threatening way, they are protected under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.


Hate Speech: Causing Controversy and Challenging Lawmakers

In the past decade there has been more focus than ever before on the impact that a person’s words have on another individual. Bullying and harassment awareness has been a growing topic discussed in both schools and communities. Some believe that these issues fall under the category of hate speech, which the American Bar Association: Division for Public Education defines as “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” There is a good amount of controversy over the topic, and many find themselves asking:

Should hate speech be protected under the First Amendment?

It is easy to confuse hate speech with fighting words, which the ABA defines as “words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken”, and are not protected under the First Amendment. The slight difference between these two is that fighting words are words that are likely to cause the listener to react violently, while hate speech is not defined by the resulting physical reaction. Freedom of speech protects words that the listener may view as offensive or hateful and that they might disagree with, as long as those words do not cause the listener to react in a negative way.

Another fine line that has caused controversy on this topic is between hate speech and hate acts. Hate acts may be regulated by law, but hate speech may not, though this is often not because of the hateful reason behind the act, but the fact that the act is otherwise illegal. For example, if an individual was to throw rocks, written on with hateful words targeting the victims religion, through the window of their home, they would most likely be charged only with destruction of property. It would be very likely that the hateful nature of this act would not affect the sentence received. Many argue that this is the proper way to deal with this type of crime, because it is more important to focus on the crime itself than the motivation behind it. Instances like this prove that it can be blatantly obvious that speech or acts are motivated by hate, but it is not always that clear. Words can be interpreted differently by all sorts of people, so it becomes difficult for lawmakers to define and create a law against hate speech. As previously stated, a law against fighting words is feasible because they are defined by their outcome, but because hate speech causes feelings, not necessarily negative actions, it becomes much more difficult to judge.

As the LA Times states, “Hateful ideas are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.” You simply cannot create a law against words based on the way they make people feel, because this violates the basic idea of freedom of speech in the First Amendment.