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:
@9V8LNC78mos8MO
No. If I'm not legally allowed to threaten the life of a president, then why should anyone be allowed hate speech? It's only used for division and hate. What good is that?
@9GTH5GN2yrs2Y
No, purposefully provoking someone into physical violence based upon their class as a minority should not be protected
@9FV8KCLRepublican2yrs2Y
No, because the term "hate speech" is subjected to the individuals involved in both the sending and receiving of the message.
@95MKLBJProgressive3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as the language doesn't threaten, encourage or endorse acts of violence and discrimination or target children for recruitment.
@93HZ4T5Independent3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence. Defining what is and is not hate speech can be very narrow or very broad and can be easily biased and weaponized.
@MalikLendell4yrs4Y
No, but blasphemy should be clearly outlined as a freedom
@MalikLendell4yrs4Y
Yes, but blasphemy should be clearly outlined as a freedom
@8LH9HQ55yrs5Y
It depends on what the hate speech is about and how much it is hurting a certain group
@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.
@kleinm09465yrs5Y
No, obscene language is not protected by the first amendment. This means that hate speech, like slurs, should not be protected
@942DTTM3yrs3Y
Yes, but allow private companies to restrict hate speech as long as their policies aren’t discriminatory
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.