Should hate speech be protected by the First Amendment? | The Tylt
The Supreme Court just affirmed that when it comes to the First Amendment, hate speech is not an exception. The ruling was over a federal trademark law that banned people from registering offensive names; the court sided unanimously an Asian-American rock band named the Slants, whose band name was deemed racially disparaging. But many argue hate speech is not the same as free speech—it incites violence and does not warrant constitutional protection. Should hateful speech be protected? 🐸 🗯️
Should hate speech be protected by the First Amendment?
It's exceedingly rare for the Supreme Court to decide unanimously on anything. When Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas agree on a constitutional matter? Maybe we should pay attention to their argument.
Dear SJWs,— Supreme Dark Lord (@voxday) June 20, 2017
Hate speech is free speech. Now stop whining about it.
The Supreme Court
American laws are very different than those of other Western democracies, in that we place far fewer limits on what people can say—and defenders of free speech say that's the valuable aspect of our system.
Hate speech is free speech, and this includes hate speech by Muslims, Christians, BLM members, whitenats, communists, and Nazis.— Chloe Adams (@addamschloe) June 20, 2017
The classic argument for why racist or bigoted speech should still be protected: banning it just drives hate underground. Better to have it out in the open for all to see.
The best way to counter hate speech is with lots of civil debate. If you suppress hate speech, it does not make the hate magically go away.— Luzarius (@luzariuslive) June 19, 2017
And who decides what is hate? As Trevor Noah pointed out, what if the Trump administration decided that Black Lives Matter was a hate group whose speech should be suppressed?
The ACLU has argued many times, and says it openly, “hate speech” codes are unconstitutional, as is policing content via law.— BernieBro Level +500 (@GayPennPatriot) June 20, 2017
But others argue speech made to incite violence deserves no First Amendment protection.
Threatening violence is not hate speech. It's not free speech either. It's a criminal act. Report it to the police.— Kexter McHerpaderp🌐 (@JerpaDerpa) June 2, 2017
Many were furious when the ACLU supported white supremacists marching in Portland, especially in the wake of a brutal hate crime where two men died.
It's easy to style yourself First Amendment champion when you are not on the receiving end of hate speech and violence regularly, like so many Black, Muslim, and LGBT Americans are.
Neutral stances on hate speech, like the one the ACLU prides itself on taking, are more dangerous than people like to think.— 💜🎵Jace Jackson🎵💜 (@VioletVioIence) June 1, 2017
Everyone has their own idea of whose speech should be protected and whose crosses the line into inciting violence.
Trumpists: Julius Caesar play is violence! Shut it down!— dril grieves 🚩 (@roflmaoism) June 17, 2017
Also Trumpists: Nazi propaganda & racist hate speech are free speech, snowflakes!!!