Should The First Amendment Be Considered Hateful?

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas. However, the right to free speech is not absolute. The United State Supreme Court has ruled that the government can ban some speeches that contain “fighting words,” and words that

The Importance of the 1st Amendment In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. The first Amendment states: “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” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment

Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think

The First Amendment saves people's everyday speech rights. In fact, according to Ala.org in 1989,”This case presented the question of whether the First Amendment prevents a school board from removing a previously approved textbook from an elective high school class because of objections to the material's vulgarity and sexual explicitness.” A schools text book was to sexual and had vulgar refrences and the svhool thought the highschoolers did not need to read it. The school didn't the the book needed to be at the school and they are allowed to take away the textbook.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Some people in today’s time would argue the first amendment is one of the most important listed in the Bill of Rights. Many forms of speech are protected by the first amendment that one wouldn’t think would be such as flag burning and “adult videos”. Over the years there have been many different court cases that have debated and fought the forms of speech that are protected.

The first amendment may seem like something that is generally understood among all of those who use it, but this may not be the case. While most citizens of the United States of America would certainly say that they understand and can comprehend what the first amendment means, an underlying lack of knowledge, upon what is presumed to be the most important of all the amendments, can still be discovered. “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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The specific piece of the first amendment that is particularly important

In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech.

There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.

Chapter 4 of the book We the People talks about Civil Liberties, this chapter mainly talks about the Rights that were placed in the Constitution (not in the Bill of Rights), it also talks about the Bill of Rights and it describes the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It also talks about specific rights that work close together with the Bill of Rights and Amendments rights. One of the first Amendments that is described in great detail is Freedom of Speech and Religion. The first Amendment protects US citizens right to talk about almost any topic in the United States. I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech.

The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

Hate crime What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is an underlying motivation based on the victim’s group membership. There has been much debate over the constitutionality of hate crime laws and which groups (if any) should be protected by such legislation. Those against hate crime laws argue that it is a violation of First Amendment protections of free, association, and freedom of thought. The Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of thought is implied by the First Amendment in R.A.V. v. St. Paul which those against hate crime laws argue makes such laws unconstitutional.

It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object”(mighty constitutional opposites). that is what separates the united states from a fascist country in that they protect all forms of speech. On the topic of hateful actions, only actions such as direct threats should be prosecuted and general hatred should be allowed. “The spectrum of hateful expression is broad, encompassing acts that are clearly illegal — such as firebombing a mosque

The first amendment of our Constitution states that we as citizens have the right to freedom of speech, granting us the right to express ourselves as individuals without interference or constraint from the government. But does this right apply to students in your average public school? The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has the right to prohibit speech that disrupts peace or causes violence, especially in public schools. In fact, there have been multiple instances in which the Supreme Court has gotten involved in the first amendment rights of public school students.

Hate speech is not always grounded in reality and often driven by ignorance to the facts rather than experience and real prejudice. Some may argue that it is just harmless prejudice and our rights are threatened if we condemn it. SO is it the right to free speech or the right to insult? Racism, bigotry, political views and views about religions in fact, most views are learnt in the family home, then the education system, society, media and TV finish the indoctrination. The damage done to groups in society that are targeted is many faceted.

As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other = = =