The American Debate Regarding Censorship Of Hate Speech

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

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

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

In the case of Elonis v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Elonis’s speech did not count as a “true threat” since a subjective intent to threaten was needed. An objective standard would not be sufficient in this case because we want to separate actual criminal acts from heat of the moment mistakes. However, the decision of the Supreme Court does not include intended victims of the threats and they need to be taken into account as well. The government’s duty to protect the right to first amendment’s freedom of speech and its duty to keep people safe can collide from time to time. Therefore, we may have to take all threats seriously and not just the ones the speaker intends, in order to protect everyone from potential violence and prevent preemptive strikes out of fear.

The First Amendment has its flaws; it does not protect against all forms speech and articles with negative intent. In each of the cases, newspaper organizations were tried for using their freedom of press. Time, place and manner regulation treats all acts of speech the same. Under this guideline, people may socialize freely in public, but may not talk at a time or place that would cause major traffic blockage, because it’s affecting the rights of other individuals. The Court developed the time, place, and manner regulation to decide if federal jurisdictions of free speech were legal under the Constitution. In this rule, limitations on free speech are solely constitutional if the speech’s content is neutral. The right’s granted under the First

Brayden Libby Mrs. Pound English II PreAP/Block 7 14 May 2018 Rhetorical Analysis of “Hate Speech and the First Amendment” In an article titled “Hate Speech and the First Amendment”, the author provides an overview of the debate and opposing side’s viewpoints. The author adopts an unbiased tone in order to convey key topics of the debate to an audience that is already putting up defenses to protect their stance. The purpose of the article is to suggest that the boundaries between opposing parties can be overcome by finding a middle ground in how to handle hate speech through the objective use of rhetorical devices.

For centuries the debate over how far our first amendment extends has reoccurred and been ever present in the court system. The Alien and Sedition acts was the first time it became noticeable that there were limits attached to our speech. They can be traced back as the beginning of this issue, since the dilemma of what exactly “freedom of speech” means began being argued. Multiple different scenarios were brought forth to the legal system in order to determine whether punishment was due or the act was excusable, simply because of the fact that our government was slacking in establishing a set-in stone meaning behind the first amendment.

Freedom of speech, the most quoted right of the United States Constitution but, what does this freedom really mean? People have struggled over this issue time and time again, arguing a whole array of things from total censorship to none at all. According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (First Amendment). Many argue that this gives U.S. citizens the right to say whatever they want, without exception. However, many disagree with this statement (maybe elaborate on this sentence). According to the Supreme Court there are a few exceptions to this freedom. Slander, defamation, fighting words and obscenity are all not protected under the First Amendment. The main issue derived from this is whether or not the government should be able to censor hate speech or if that is a violation of the Constitution. One one hand, it is argued that it should be allowed in order to protect minorities and individuals from being slandered and targeted. On the other hand, it is said that the government should not have that authority, as such laws will undoubtedly lead to censorship in a way that truly does limit free speech. These issues have been discussed and argued over for years, with the focus always returning to the text of the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides valuable guidance to the country and is viable on determining laws and court cases concerning the issue of hate speech in present day America. Although, it has proven

Throughout the years of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow latitude to speech of the press and of the people. However, the restrictions on speech the Court determined to fall outside the limits of permitted speech and therefore considered “unprotected speech” include fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, solicitations to commit crimes, child pornography, blackmail, perjury, obscenity, and false & misleading commercial speech. To look back at recorded foundations of the first amendment regarding speech – words used to incite imminent lawless action, can be seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That is to say, a state can’t stop free speech unless there is imminent danger of inciting violence.

Although threats on social media are misinterpreted, the author claims we still have the right to the First Amendment. Occasionally, threats are not meant in a serious manner, but people view threats of violence in a different perspective and not everybody follows through the same opinion.

Hate speech is taking over our lives we get separated into groups defining what we believe in. Imagine yourself in a crowd of people fighting for your rights but in never ends. America should limit hate speech because hate speeches caused divisions in our cultures, Hate speech conducted into riots and violence it also relates to fights and citizens getting in deep trouble on social media.

This create awareness in the First Amendment, the court prohibited the person because he is addressing the other person with bad words. It also states the person must be punished for using the inoffensive words in public.

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.

Obviously, there are various ways that words and images can be used to hurt others. This raises concerns about the need to protect the more vulnerable members of society, such as racial and ethnic minorities, women, and children. In the United States the issue is complicated by the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech. There are good reasons for cherishing this freedom and protecting it from being tampered with. Nonetheless, there have been calls for the government to step in and limit free speech for the sake of those who might be harmed by it in certain cases. This paper will consider this issue and will review the pro and con arguments that have been made for increasing