Should hate speech be protected by the first amendment?
Hate speech is defined as public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. In the 2017 US Supreme Court Case Matal v. Tam the Court ruled in favor of Asian-American musician Simon Tam. Tam filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Patent and Trademark office after it rejected a trademark application for his band The Slants. Tam stated that he chose to give that name to his band in order to “reclaim” and to “take ownership” of Asian stereotypes. The U.S. Patent and Trademar…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@8SYNS5G4yrs4Y
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
@Wombattius_ 2mos2MO
No, as it can incite violence. Though, it would be corrupt to allow the government to define what constitutes as hate speech.
@Nimrauko 1yr1Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence. I do not trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
@9JN9HVKIndependent1yr1Y
No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It should mostly protect you from criticizing the government
@9F8MGYB2yrs2Y
No, hate speech presents a clear and present danger and should not be protected.
@95VJCZ4Progressive3yrs3Y
No, it protects your right to say anything, but it does not protect you from the consequences of said speech
@95TVNL63yrs3Y
The first ammendment protects you from persecution by the government, not criticism from others. People get that confused.
@95RSZXQIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, until it incites things like domestic terrorism or infringment on a person's individual rights and liberty.
@Lycaon1765pIndependent3yrs3Y
It is the unfortunate consequence of free speech, and should be dealt with at the court of public opinion.
@8ZWCMML3yrs3Y
Ideally, no, but it should be as long as the Constitution is the way that it is. If the Constitution can be changed to not protect hate speech, then it should be.
@GuitarLord25Progressive3yrs3Y
Response to hate speech and harassment should be handled with public condemnation, de-escalation teams, restorative circles, and education; not fines or criminal charges. We can combat hate speech with greater efforts to diversify communities and boost their social capital.
@8T93XXQ4yrs4Y
No, it should only be protected in cases where it is not calling for violence and not disrupting people's lives. People should not have to battle through racial slurs and damnations on their way to work.
@GuitarLord25Progressive4yrs4Y
Speech should be protected. Response to hate speech and harassment should be handled with de-escalation teams, restorative circles, and education; not fines or criminal charges.
@SablevargGreen5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if it does not threaten violence, discrimination or the constraint of the target's civil rights, or advocate these actions by others.
@8HKQFCP5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as you accept the consequences of what you say
@8D27TMH5yrs5Y
Misinformation should not be protected
@GuitarLord25Progressive5yrs5Y
Respond to hate speech and harassment with deescalation teams, restorative circles, and education; not fines or criminal charges.
@9BCNNP32yrs2Y
People should not be arrested or charged for hate speech, but I believe that they should be taught in a constructive (but not negative or scolding) way why that speech is hurtful to other people.
No, but only in extreme circumstances
@GuitarLord25Progressive3yrs3Y
We can combat hate speech without violating the first amendment by diversifying communities, increasing media literacy, and cracking down on white nationalist domestic terrorism and election denial while simultaneously squashing up and coming fascist movements.
@966ZXHQ3yrs3Y
No, while you should be protected in simply stating your opinion, any speech that entices violence on the basis of someone's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, disability, etc. should not be protected.
@GuitarLord25Progressive3yrs3Y
We can combat hate speech without violating the first amendment by diversifying communities, increasing media literacy, and cracking down on white nationalist domestic terrorism and election denial.
@95VLX8Y3yrs3Y
No, and also it is sometimes subjective what hate speech refers to. Include a more clear definition for what it entails.
@93N6ZTCLibertarian3yrs3Y
Threats are illegal and if someone is threatening a minority, that is no longer constitutionally protected. and there are natural consequences for being hateful and society should correct that speech/behavior in peers
@8DM8S455yrs5Y
I don’t understand this and cannot have an opinion on it
@8C5XB7T5yrs5Y
Yes, but criminalize actions under harassment
@8GZRRDZProgressive5yrs5Y
No, particularly hate speech that has hundreds of historical and current examples of turning into hateful acts rather than just threats of it.
No, and it is not already.
@8P6PWZP4yrs4Y
No, and hate speech should be considered terrorism.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
