Hate speech.

[Ordr]

Can we have a discussion about what hate speech is and whether or not it clashes with the First Amendment? I really don't understand how such speech can ever be regulated because it seems like the definition is entirely subjective. I've read about how hate speech must incite or entice violent action in order for it to be worthy of that term but, to me, it is still really hard to pinpoint considering what is already illegal, such as death-threats.

[bryant69]

1. Hate speech can be non specific

If I say "I really want to kill me some people who's ancestors came from Edinburgh Scotland" that's a threat to all people with Edinburgh Scotland descent.

Hate Speech can also not imply any action on the speakers part. "I wish some of the young lions in our anti-Swedish movement would go out and kill some Swedish people. That way there'd be less Swedish people!" The speaker incites and encourages murder, but doesn't actually commit any murder himself.

I could be way off though, I suppose.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mountainman]

2. Hate speech use to be very legal. Take the South, and it's view of African Americans.

Can you see how speech hurts a whole community of people? There may be no real crime involved but the abuse of people's civil rights was accepted as the norm.

Some people feel it is their right to use speech that leads to a normalization of hurtful ideas and actions. The item in the news about Christians calling Gays sinners and such leads to the acceptable ideas of firing people and not renting to them because of their sexual preferences.

So even though no law is broken, hate speech leads to prejudice and the abuse of the civil rights of a class of people.


So hate speech should not be accepted on our society today.

[Ordr]

3. "should not be accepted on our society today"

I wholeheartedly agree that it should not be accepted but should it be illegal? Does context play a role? Your example about the situation of Southern blacks is a good one but it also involved actual discrimination through action, either through employment, judicial rulings, housing, etc. We've all heard some loser use a racial slur in anger but would we consider that to be on par with action?

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. What is the context?

In general hate speech is not illegal in the United States, although there are "incitement" and "clear and present threat" classes of speech which can leave you legally liable for any violence, injury or death that arises directly from what you said. But even there, it is not the speech itself which is illegal.

[Jim__]

5. Is hate speech outlawed anywhere in the US?

Wikipedia lists some countries that have laws against hate speech; but it doesn't include the US in that list.

It also has an entry that talks about hate crime laws in the US; but I've always understood a hate crime to be an aggravating factor to another crime that is being committed (I may be misunderstanding that).

[jaxx]

6. Hate speech is directed to a subject rather than an individual.

The individual takes the beating for the subject because he/she is a part of the subject. Such as Bill is gay, Joe hates all things gay, therefore Joe beats Bill for being gay. Joe would leave Bill alone if he didn't know he was gay.

Sorta like that.

[pingzing58]

7. The content of speech is protected by First Amendment but the harmful effects of speech

can be limited by government at least in the U.S. I think that this distinction has helped with the confusion that exists concerning "regulating or limiting speech through legislation". The content of speech is not regulated through legislation. What is regulated are the "harmful effects" of speech. Death threats are not protected under the First Amendment because it's not the speech that is illegal it is the "intent to commit a crime." So it appears to me.