In present day politics, there is much debate surrounding the topic of the first amendment. In many public discussions, the term hate-speech is thrown around. This especially was brought to my attention in class on Friday when the question of, "What are some restrictions to the first amendment?" was asked and someone blurted out the word hate-speech. This is a common misconception that I hear time and time again. People misunderstand that hate-speech is unregulated and it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Firstly, there is no legal definition of hate-speech. This does not mean there are no regulations of speech, but there is no regulation on opinion. This was reinforced in 1992 in the landmark case R.A.V. v. S.T. Paul. In the case, it was ruled that a criminal ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that “arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” was unconstitutional because the law punished speech based on the ideas expressed. hate-speech maybe offensive at times, but is not illegal and undefined.
I believe the misconception of hate-speech derives from a misunderstanding of the already set regulations on speech. The regulation on speech commonly mistaken for hate-speech are fighting-words. In the 1925 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, it was ruled that speech(fighting words) that causes injury or an immediate breach of the peace, was not protected by the first amendment. People instantly relate fighting words to hate-speech because it can be said that hate-speech can incite a breach of the peace. This is where the mistake occurs. Hate-speech is subjectively defined which means anything can be considered hateful. so concluding that all "hate-speech" incites a breach of the peace and is the same thing as fighting words is incorrect. Also if someone commits a crime because of something someone said, unless it was a direct call to action, the person who spoke bears no responsibility for the actions of others.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/landmark-cases/freedom-of-speech-general/
I appreciate the way you broke down the misconception of hate-speech being synonymous with "fighting words." The first amendment is a double-edged sword in this way; it gives people the freedom to express virtually any opinion they have, even if those opinions are derogatory or offensive towards others. This is the beauty of free speech, but obviously one would wish that people were more sensitive and polite about expressing their more negative views.
ReplyDelete