The First Amendment says that the government protects the right of the individual of free speech. But, should the government protect the individual's hate speech?

Comments

According to the US Supreme

According to the US Supreme Court, there are certain categories of speech or expression that are not protected by the First Amendment, for example "fighting words" or those that incite people to riot or cause a breach of the peace; the "fighting words" are also "insulting", and they are "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace". These "have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem" (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942). Slander is another example. "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." It seems to me that hate speech could fit in nicely between "fighting words" and libel and slander. Philosophically this is interesting. You insult someone or instigate hatred towards them, by speech, on the basis of their race or color or whatever you hate. You are demeaning someone by suggesting that by being a member of a group they are somehow importantly the worse.

Read another response by Jonathan Westphal

Read another response about Freedom, Justice