Hate Speech And The First Amendment

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

The first amendment to the constitution is one that never seems to be debated itself, but its interpretation is often times debated. In saying this I mean that most everyone agrees that people should have the right to free speech, but what is often debated is where to draw the line. The question is, what is the difference is between someone using their right to free speech and them spewing hate speech. The first amendment is quite possibly the most important to maintaining our form government. It allows us, the people to have a say and speak on political topics among other things. The full first amendment, which was officially put into place alongside the second amendment in 1791, is made up of, for the most part, two basic points. It touches on religion and preventing freedom of speech or press “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first of these points that touches on religion was first formed based upon one of the main reasons that

There are four general situations in which freedom of speech should be banned. The first one is Clear and present danger: Freedom of speech will not be protected if the words that come from any person's mouth put in danger someone else, provoke violence, or even incite or suggest illegal actions. A second situation is fighting words: These are the terms socially know to rage anyone, and when they are told face-to-face to a second person, they are not protected by the first amendment because they tend to alter public order and stimulate violence. The third main situation in freedom of speech is known as libel and slander: In this situation the Supreme Court explains that when speech or communication is used to damage someone else's reputation, to lie, or to tergiversate the truth and make it look as something it is not, it is not covered under the first amendment. The forth and last boundary of the first amendment is referred to as time, place and manner: This particular scenario does not disallow the content of the speech itself, but it takes into consideration the place where the speech is given, and the way the person presents the speech. If under any circumstance the government interests or regularities are violated, the speech is not protected under the first amendment.

Hate speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

To begin, the very first amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizens with the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is generally the right to express your own opinion without restrictions. This typically includes the right not to speak if you do not want to, the right to advertise goods, products, and services, and even the right to use certain derogatory words and/or phrases to transfer political beliefs. However, citizens often get confused about what is actually granted within the right and what is not. For example, if you are in a public place with a good

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the American people the right to Freedom of Speech, as stated in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What is Freedom of Speech? It is the right to both verbal and non-verbal communication of thoughts and ideas. The people of America have the right to Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression.

Throughout the years, the first amendment of the United States constitution has protected the right of freedom of speech,giving our community the privilege of express our thoughts without fear of being punished. The United States first amendment gives the people the privilege to express their thoughts without fear of punishment. The first amendments has brought a massive controversy in the society and between countries. Freedom of speech gives the people liberty, but in some instances should be limited because individuals have used it as an excuse to freely discriminate races, religions and others sexual orientation; however, it should not be limited in certain cases like people protesting for their rights in a positive way, without prejudice

In the articles “Should the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?” by Brooke Ross, and “Editorial in The New York Times: January 1, 1948”, both contain many important similarities and differences. In the first article “Should the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?”, it explains mostly about The First Amendment . For example, in the article it states, “ The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for change.” This shows that the First Amendment gives you the right to protest peacefully for a change in the government. Another example that the article states is, “The First Amendment protects most hate speech.” This is another example that shows how The First Amendment protects most hate speech,

The First Amendment of the constitution is the most significant political statement in the history of the United States. The ability to speak freely is a value that is cherished by most American citizens. In many countries around the world, people are sent to prison, or even executed, for expressing opinions not shared by the government. In the United States, any government official, no matter how powerful, must abide by the opinions of the people, even when those opinions are brutal, or even unfair. Free speech is probably the best known and most revered of our constitutional rights in the U.S., but it not always easy to define what exactly is speech. As humans, we have many ways of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. Especially, since we are part of an innovative society that is constantly evolving.

Just a couple of months ago white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville to protest the tearing down of the statue of Robert E Lee. The racism and hate they spread through their march is unquestionably disgusting and serves no purpose in our society today. This event has led to social media sites such as Twitter to crack down even harder in a plight they started over a year ago to silence hateful speech. While there are some occasional dissenters, the general population agrees with the opinion that this speech is awful in every sense. With that being said, censoring their right to free speech is a bit too rash. We can all agree that free speech is one of the most important rights we have, and with President Trump throwing around the term “fake news” at major news organizations, it is more important than ever to protect that freedom. The article “The case for restricting hate speech” by Laura Beth Nielsen of the Los Angeles Times gives an argument for why hate speech should be censored. While she provides valid points, with the absence of factual statistics, none of them are strong enough to support her thesis that hate speech should be banned. I believe that in almost every instance, hate speech should remain protected just as much as our right to free speech.

Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of

In a Natural Rights system of government, the government would not be able to stop hate speech because the they would be breaching the citizens right to free speech. A newspaper called the Telegraph (UK) said, “The most fundamental concept of democracy is the idea that a government exists to secure the rights of the people…”(1). This supports the idea of a Natural Rights system of government were the natural god given rights are put first because the government is supposed to ensure those rights to its people. The only way that the government would be able to stop hate speech is if the citizens were to use popular sovereignty to vote on a law that outlawed all hate speech. But if an opposing party were to use this quote next quote from the