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:
No, and increase penalties and education for hate speech
Yes, instead we should incentivize serious social/personal consequences for hate speech
No, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences.
Freedom of speech does not allow freedom to avoid consequences from what you've said
needs more specifications.
Yes, but the people should voluntarily discourage hate speech
Yes, but social media has a right to ban you if it is a private owned business
No, but hate speech should be a civil, not criminal matter
If it threatens violence, absolutely not. Otherwise, I suppose it should be protected, but it shouldn’t protect you from the punishments of individuals or employers.
Yes, but only from the government. If a white person says the n word I think anybody nearby should be allowed to beat them up.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.