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:
@jerry9310Libertarian 8mos8MO
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence or give out anyone's private information to the public.
@97297LJ3yrs3Y
Yes there is no such thing as hate speech
Any speech that violates another’s rights should not be protected.
@8ZDVVL63yrs3Y
All speech should be protected by the first amendment and "Hate Speech" is meaningless at that point.
@8Y5QYVV3yrs3Y
Hate speech is bad when it’s actually hate speech. Now everything is hate speech. It’s gotten ridiculous!
@8RN6JVDRepublican4yrs4Y
Depends what they're saying
@9RSBFLCIndependent10mos10MO
don’t trust government
@9CL96982yrs2Y
Yes, because I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech. Also, hate speech should be protected by the first amendment as long as it does not threaten violence.
@8SZBT7H4yrs4Y
Defining and/or prohibiting hate speech is completely out of the government's purview.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.