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:
@9RXNYG69mos9MO
No, but expand limits on what constitutes threats of violence to include some aspects of hate speech.
@DesiraeBae 10mos10MO
Yes as long as it doesn’t threaten violence. It is difficult to accept but it is even more difficult to have a government agency draw a universal line determining what is and isn’t “hate” speech. Frankly, people are allowed to hate other people. Where and how that hate is expressed is the issue. The nuance is the key. Blanket regulation leads to censorship and over policing.
@9GTPXTVRepublican2yrs2Y
No, instances of hate speech should be evaluated on a case by case basis instead of codified into law.
@9FZJCKV2yrs2Y
This can be a tricky topic because what someone might consider hate speech, might not be for someone else. Of course, I think that if someone or a group of people are intently targeting someone or a group of people (Nazi Germany targeting Jews, for example, and murdering about 6 million), that should not happen. But if someone or a group of people are stating facts such as "a female is someone who generally can conceive children, have specific genitalia, and have XX chromosomes" and someone or a group of people think that's hate speech, I'm not so sure that's a valid claim. At the end of the day, we are fortunate to live in a country that allows us to speak freely because that is not the case in other parts of the world.
@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.
@8XZLB4H3yrs3Y
Yes, the freedom of speech is the freedom, not the protection from consequences
@8XWL8NM3yrs3Y
It depends on what is being said such as threats of physical violence or death.
@8TCX33QIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence or death threats.
Yes, as long as it is not an act that could be considered harrassment, and it does not threaten violence.
@8HST3HX5yrs5Y
No, hate speech should be considered similar to a threat
@8DF84LD5yrs5Y
Hate speech should be monitored to see if a person is planning to act dangerously.
@8CZ32BW5yrs5Y
Yes, because with a precedent for changing first amendment rights, a loophole is created that could be cited to limit free speech.
@9CL3PXM2yrs2Y
Just do what Germany did for speech laws, their method of handling this issue is excellent.
@9BSNF562yrs2Y
it depends on what is qualified as “free speech”, because hate speech can be dangerous even if it doesn’t directly encourage violence.
@98R6GGY2yrs2Y
I think todays society is very sensitive, and hate speech is extremely dumb.
@PolitiHawkIndependent5yrs5Y
No, and the consequences of hate speech should vary based on language and call to action
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
