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:
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes
@SwingStateAlfieSocialist9mos9MO
Top Agreement
And the accuser should be able to determine the punishment
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican4mos4MO
There should be no punishment for hate speech, only hate crime. And what if the accusation is untrue or over exaggerated?
@9FWX5RJ2yrs2Y
Who decides what hate speech is? At what point does it move past disagreeing with someone's beliefs and into hate? The definition is too vague, and leaves too much room for interpretation. On top of this, citizens should not have to live in fear of being arrested for their opinions, even if their opinions are unpopular or wrong. America's strength should lie in our commitment to personal freedom and our diversity in thought, culture, beliefs, and backgrounds. That should be what sets us apart.
@9F7ZKSD2yrs2Y
Hate speech, while seen as offensive and damaging, does not cause extreme harm or damage and should be protected under the constitution like any other speech.
@9FPN3JY2yrs2Y
Hate isn't healthy for either the speaker or the victim of the hate and that hate can lead to violence, which could lead to physical harm or even death.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican4mos4MO
It only leads to violence for people who have mental issues. If their hate is genuine and they have an actual reason for it, it most likely won't escalate to anything further, it's just an opinion. If their hate has no real reason for it, then it might be a mental issue, like trauma or vengance, but we can't just assume hate speech always lead to violence or heartfelt hatred, they might just be sharing their opinion.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No
@9G8D3872yrs2Y
Hate speech doesn’t infringe on any of the basic rights, or any rights. Speech that incites violence is not protected as it directly contributes to the right to life.
@Deep_Fried_MilkSocialist 12mos12MO
You could argue, though, that hate speech can incite violence against certain groups of people. However, that being said, freedom of speech is listed in the First Amendment. I think it depends on what is said. In general, though, I believe hate speech promotes violence against individuals and minorities.
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
Incitement is incitement, which is already an exception.
Most "hate speech" doesn't meet that standard.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
For those of you who say that hate speech leads to volence, being forced to bottle up that hatred is what will lead to violence. If you can't express your hate freely, it will grow inside of you, and you feel like if you can't express it, you must deal with it yourself so it won't be a problem for you.
@9FLYMR72yrs2Y
African-Americans, for example, were called derogatory names for hundreds of years and something is being done about it just know because we are starting to stand up for ourselves.
@9FPN3JY2yrs2Y
Police brutality and the actions that follow, such as riots, are a clear indicator on the cause and effect of Hate Speech.
@9F7ZKSD2yrs2Y
America was built on the freedom of speech and expression. So it should not be a problem that hate speech is limited.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
@9FZBPKH 2yrs2Y
Hate speech is fairly easy to define, and so long as news organizations can report on the government doing this and then people will vote for different leaders. Theoretically.
@9FQVK5J2yrs2Y
Any form of speech or advocacy that incites violence or strips one of constitutional right (i.e voter suppression due to discriminatory bias), is easily able to be tried in court and should be restricted by the government.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence
@9FM28JS2yrs2Y
I believe in the 1st amendment which is freedom of speech. However, hate speech is making it harder for others to live their daily life. If I were subjected to hate speech, my freedom of expression could then be tainted
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
If someone can't express their hatred using speech, they'll result to violence.
@9G8TDMF2yrs2Y
I don't think hate speech should be allowed in any situation. It is wrong and not the best way to handle a problem.
@9FM4WTW2yrs2Y
Hate speech always encourages violence by nature of degrading and enforcing a negative social perception of a person or group of people
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Why do you think everyone lacks the self control and will lash out with violence? That is such a pessimistic view.
@9GPX2V82yrs2Y
Hate speech is unacceptable on many levels. Going on racist or homophobic tirades and calling that "freedom" is quite ridiculous.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, and increase penalties for hate speech
@9F7K4LL2yrs2Y
Hate speech is a term that is largely amorphous and poorly defined. There is no legal definition for hate speech in the United States. Banning it would leave the door open for politicization. In an ever-political world, judicial decisions often get caught in the cross-hairs and what would be deemed “hate speech” could vary wildly depending on the political tides.
In addition to this difficulty of enforcement, the first amendment is designed specifically to protect speech which is disliked. If speech is popular, it will not be called hate speech. Only unpopular speech, which would… Read more
@9FG685V2yrs2Y
What is determined as hate speech is a little too harsh. People are a little bit to soft and want everything to be punished/canceled
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
People should be able to express any emotion they want, whether it is love or hatred, freely with no consequences.
@9GD2ST32yrs2Y
I think Hate Speech and be anything these days, because everyone is so soft now. If someones says something to you that you don't like or agree can be "hate speech" and I don't agree with that.
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government
@9FP2MBP2yrs2Y
The first amendment protects all speech, if people are offended because of something you said that is their problem not yours.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Offending people with words should be 100% acceptable as long as it doesn't threaten violence.
@9FM28JS2yrs2Y
Hate speech towards a person impacts their way of life disrupting their own freedom of self-expression. The government on the other hand needs to have feedback if the system is to work.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
If someone lets hate speech disrupt their own freedom of self expression, that is their problem, and they're a big crybaby if some hate will stop them from expressing themselves.
@9FNRVL22yrs2Y
You have freedom of speech that shouldn't even be taken away when you use it against the government. You are allowed to have opinions and express those without getting in trouble. especially since there is no harm against anyone.
@9GMPY5X2yrs2Y
These laws give us the freedom to live in peace without these laws corruption would strike it would be chaotic it is not only for protection against the government but for one’s self and everyone else.
@8LS9RRX5yrs5Y
It depends on the intention. Is it to incite violence or harm against other or simply articulate an injustice or anger at a circumstance?
@8KJL7SD5yrs5Y
this is a very iffy subject it depends on what the government considers hate speech
@9VJD9VZ7mos7MO
Why would someone ever trust the government to say what is hate speech. That argument is so flawed. What if I said “The government is the enemy of the people, It is doing nothing for them and all the policies are benefiting the elite”. Wont the government consider that hate speech? Even tho it clearly is not. The point is by your logic the government can consider anything criticizing the government as hate speech. This argument is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.
@8G89YS25yrs5Y
I don't have enough knowlegde about this subject, but I don't believe hate speech is okay.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Any speech should be allowed as long as it isn't threatening to kill someone.
@8JPJYNC5yrs5Y
It depends on what the government defines as hate speech. Sometimes what people say can be misinterpreted. But if it's blatant hate speech, then no it shouldn't.
@94Z37B43yrs3Y
Yes, but it's not hate speech.
@8CDJWPX5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as it is not coming from anyone in an official capacity and does not incite violence
@8L9TTGJConstitution5yrs5Y
No, all speech IS protected by the first ammendment
@8YQLNK23yrs3Y
No, and increase penalties for hate speeches against police, race/ethnicities, sexual orientations, and religions (Blackcraft Cult is okay). The Freedom of Speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Not only do think hate speech is ok, but sexual orientation (like being gay) is a perfectly good reason to hate someone. Hatred due to race or religion isn't good (though it should still be 100% legal) but hatred due to sexual orientation or gender identity (whether or not it matches their biological sex) is 100% justified.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Not only do I think hate speech is ok
@8CTTJ8S5yrs5Y
Yes, As long as no one gets hurt or has their rights taken then hate speech is nothing but talk.
@8LJQ3895yrs5Y
Yes, this is a free country but if the hate speech incites violence or threatens others (such as the President), then it should be shut down
@8HWN5RF5yrs5Y
Only when threatening in any way, or in large public settings where it disrupts the pursuit of happiness of others.
@8D4MNS25yrs5Y
Yes, so long as it does not threaten violence it should be protected. As bad as hate speech is, censorship is a very slippery slope that must be treated with caution.
No, while giving the government unilateral authority to decide what constitutes hate speech can be dangerous, hate speech by it's very nature is very dangerous and promotes violence and violent ideas and it should be treated as a criminal offense
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Here's some hate speech for you: Gay people are disgusting retards who are sick in the head. So should I be arrested for saying this? No! Making hate speech a criminal offense is stupid and violates the first amendment in every way, and there'd be way too many criminals if anyone who ever said anything hateful was a criminal!
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence and is found to not cause damage to mental health ( like cyber bullying or harassment)
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
If some hate speech damages someone's mental health, that is their problem. They are a big crybaby and need to toughen up. It is not the speaker's fault.
@8CRFYJV5yrs5Y
There is no such thing as hate speech.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
I would say there is such a thing as hate speech, it just shouldn't be punishable.
@8JV8R5Q5yrs5Y
Not if it advocates violence or political discrimination
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
I kinda agree with your first part, but you never said whether or not just pure hate speech should be legal or not, if there is no violence threatened. Also what do you mean by "advocates violence"? Cause advocating and threatening are not the same, threatening is saying you or someone else will do something to them. Advocating is a lot more vague and doesn't have to be a direct threat. In that case, advocating for violence should be legal, even though it is wrong.
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
How can we differentiate between hate speech and a strongly worded opinion without limiting personal expression?
@9THSWW88mos8MO
There’s things are way too harsh to say than others
@9TP2MY7 8mos8MO
hate speech is a call to action and normalizes hate and violence, an opinion should allow room for discussion and not other someone.
@9TNXPJV8mos8MO
hate speech has no point to make. It is aimed towards someone they don't like with no point to be made.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3mos3MO
Just don't care about hate speech, make all speech acceptable
@8H4CZBN5yrs5Y
No, because I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
@8DFD27RRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as nothing illegal or harmful is threatened
@8GKXH8D5yrs5Y
No, but I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.
@8YWKFCTWorking Family3yrs3Y
Yes, because there is no such thing as hate speech.
@8LDMT6B5yrs5Y
Freedom of speech. Yes it should be protected. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - Article 1, Amendment 1
@8DFBVSY5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech.
@lionheart2477 2yrs2Y
No, Freedom of speech is NOT Freedom from consequences.
freedom of speech does not protect you from consequences, it falls under targeted harassment and should be punished as such
@8T3VPBM4yrs4Y
No, and increase penalties for hate speeches against police, race/ethnicity, sexual orientations, and religions.
Yes, technically the first amendments protects this, but I do not agree with it
@8K5JW7H5yrs5Y
Yes but they should also be prepared for a swift punch in the mouth.
@YWB69KLibertarian5yrs5Y
Should hate speech be protected by the first amendment? I think all speech with regards to what you can say regarding the govermement is already protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution which protects your right to worship , express , and to address the Govermement for reverence agreements , and is ment to keep the Govermement from infringing on those rights against individuals willing to exercise those rights. but that only applies to Govermement , meaning that the Govermement cannot go against your freedom of speech , worship , journalism or Freedom of the Press if you will etc… Read more
@9D644HF2yrs2Y
@9F56K6ZLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but hate speech isn't a thing. The only speech that needs protecting is speech that offends. If nobody is offended then nobody is trying to ban the speech.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
What about speech that promotes or incites hatred?
@8KP6FM85yrs5Y
Yes, go Thomas Hobbes. Also hate speech is almost impossible to draw conccrete boundaries on and if it was illegal it could lead to the ultimate loss of genuine free speech.
@92L8W56Libertarian3yrs3Y
Yes because I don’t trust the government to define boundaries. Explicit threats of violence against anyone should be shut down.
@928PJ8QLibertarian3yrs3Y
Hard agree. Speech should only be restricted if it puts people or property in reasonable fear of harm.
No, increase penalties for hate speech and you should have to go to jail for any racist or offensive
@98HPNWL2yrs2Y
I agree with this besides the jail part. You should only go to jail when it threatens violence. Other than that it should just be fines.
@97YVVGW2yrs2Y
No, hate speech is not real.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
“hate speech is not real.”
So what do you call speech that incites hatred/violence against others..?
@8XBHDRW3yrs3Y
I don't agree that hate speech should be protected by the first amendment because it can cause harm to specific groups of people. If it were banned, it would give the government access to ban other forms of freedom of speech that they agree.
@92MJ2LP3yrs3Y
@8GZKCWS5yrs5Y
Things must be allowed to be spoken, but are also subject to harsh criticism, and those who enact hate speech should be made aware that they will be closely monitored henceforth
@8TBK3BQ4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as it does not threaten violence Yes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
@8JRWSCLRepublican5yrs5Y
No, but I don't trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech
Any speech which threatens or incites violence against others on the basis of a protected class or similar trait should not be protected, but all other speech should.
@8G75TK3Republican5yrs5Y
No, the definition of hate speech is too broad, too vague and can be streched and warped in all sorts of directions if one feels offended. Dialogue is the only solution to slowly and painfully reduce discrimination. Having one's own idea challenged and counter challenged is the only way forward.
@8GGL9GW5yrs5Y
Yes, because it is technically still considered freedom of speech.
No, because it promotes or encourages violence against an individual or group of people due to their race, religion, or sexual orientation
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
