Module 6
Final Draft
Mr. Reynolds
"Hate speech should be protected in the First Amendment"
The most compelling reason for hate speech being protected refers to our history of discrimination and prejudice ultimately, for the purpose of trying to repair our troubled racial society that we need hate speech legislation. The government has the right to limit free speech in cases of overly racist or sexist language because our failure to address such abuses would effectively suggest that our society condones such ignorant and hateful views.
Hate speech should be protected in the first amendment because the rights of the American people are the foundation of the success of our democracy. The Constitution protects all of the citizens and guarantees “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to all men and women under the law. A review of the First amendment explains that hate speech causes injury but only when it’s determined to be fighting words, libel, slander, or obscenity. Logically misinterpreting the law in the judicial system can cause the rights of the people to be jeopardized. The current interpretation of the 1st Amendment constitutes protected and unprotected speech and must be re-valuated to better protect the people form injurious speech. Injustice happens when constitutionally protected speech harms a person but certain speech has fallen outside the scope of judicial protection. The Supreme Court’s opinion on first amendment protection is with regards to hate speech as being “fighting words” or words that “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” and are without protection. Under this statute many colleges and universities have implemented speech codes making offensive speech punishable offenses. In favor of these speech codes, numerous cases have come up that challenge the 1st Amendment constitutionality about the speech regulation. Civil liberties groups such as The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or FIRE, are against the implementation of speech codes on college campuses, claiming that they are “overbroad and limit any views that may be deemed unpopular if not hateful.”
I don’t approve of hate speech and I believe it should be discourages and or challenged. However, I don’t believe it should be criminalized unless it’s expressed aggressively or in a sustained manner which it can lead to criminal threats or harassments. One of the main problems with hate speech law is defining what constitutes hate. The fine line between hate speech and legitimate disagreeable viewpoints is hard to conclude constitutionally with certainty, clarity and consistently.