Tag Archives: hate speech

Hate Speech vs. Free Speech

As of today, the First Amendment does not contain an exception for hate speech, meaning it is allowed and even protected under freedom of speech.  There is a limit to speech considered “fighting words,” or threats, but hate speech is not included because the First Amendment considers it to be merely an expression of opinion.  Many people believe that our Constitution should be altered to limit hate speech due to its potentially detrimental effects on the victims; however as of right now, any citizen has the right to express their hate as long as it doesn’t put others in danger.

One of the most recent cases involving hate speech is Phelps vs. Snyder, when Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who had died in Iraq. The church strongly believes that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, especially within the military, so they often protest at military funerals with signs with phrases like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates Fags.”  Matthew’s father, Albert Snyder, testified against the church with the claim that he is unable to separate the thoughts of his son’s death with the thoughts of the hateful protest, often getting physically ill just thinking about it.  After much consideration, the Supreme Court sided with the church on the premise that their protest is a matter of public concern expressed on public property, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.  Similarly, the members of the church have the right to communicate their ideas just as we all do.  

Although this is technically correct, many people still regard their protests as an act of lawlessness, and think the Westboro Baptist Church and its members should have taken responsibility for the repercussions on the Snyder family.  I think the Constitution should put some type of limitation on hate speech. Clearly not all of it can be restricted, as it would infringe on our citizens’ rights to expression, but I do believe some structure should be put in place. For example, with Albert Snyder and his physical disturbance caused by the protests.  Although legal, these assertions have caused pain for many people, and should therefore be outlawed under the First Amendment.

 

Works Cited:

 

Liptak, Adam. “Funeral Picketing Is Free Speech, Court Rules”. Nytimes.com. N. p., 2014. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

 

Volokh, Eugene. “No, There’S No “Hate Speech” Exception To The First Amendment”. Washington Post. N. p., 2017. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

 

Hate Speech covered by the First Amendment?

When considering the topic of Hate Speech one must look to the Supreme Court.  They have dealt with issues of Hate Speech both directly and indirectly. From Miller v. California where Obscenity was defined based on the community standards.   To the Beauharnais v. Illinois,  where Joseph Beauharnais expressed his views on the, “harassment and invasion of white people” his leaflets were deemed libel, this is one of the limits of the First Amendment.  Hate Speech has even been examined with a leader of the Ku Klux Klan in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio.  The court said that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law violated the right to free speech.  These court cases asked the question is there a difference between Hate Speech and Free Speech, and should crimes be prosecuted/punished differently?  In other words should the motivation of a crime be examined to  determine the punishment.

Hate Speech itself is not covered directly under the First Amendment.  Free speech is the right for someone to express themselves.  However, there are still limits that must be considered like Slander/ Libel, Clear and present danger, fighting words, and obscenity.  The First Amendment is no longer protecting you.  Hate Speech is indirectly protected under the First Amendment, until it crosses one of the limits.  The first Amendment gives of great freedom, but Hate Speech a price.

 

Work Cited:

“R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675. Accessed 19 Feb. 2017.

“Miller v. California.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-73. Accessed 19 Feb. 2017.

“Beauharnais v. Illinois.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us250. Accessed 19 Feb. 2017.

“Brandenburg v. Ohio.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492. Accessed 19 Feb. 2017.

Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25. By Raoul Meyer. Prod. Stan Muller. Perf. Craig Benzine. YouTube. N.p., 31 July 2015. Web. 19 Feb. 2017

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.