• The 1st Amendment should protect hate speech.

    Everybody has the freedom of speech, according to the 1st Amendment, so everybody has the freedom of saying what they want or how they feel. Hate speech is not right though. It encourages bullying and it makes people feel bad about themselves. Hate speech would be fine, if worded differently. The message would still get across, but it would less likely to hurt someone's feelings. Everybody has the right to say as they feel. If no one was able to say as they feel, nobody would be able to stand up for what they believe in. The 1st Amendment protects the right to say as you wish.

  • Hate speech is our problem, we'll deal with it.

    The first amendment very specifically says that Americans will not have their freedom of speech restricted. That's a very good thing - we can say what we want and what we believe in, and we can't get in trouble for it. If people were restricted through their opinions, we would never be allowed to say anything unless EVERYONE agrees with it. That's not going to happen. You can't get millions of Americans to believe in one solid thing. Our religions, traditions, cultures, and way of life are all part of freedom of speech. If we had our freedom restrained, we might as well say that people have no freedom at all. If we did say that hate speech is against the constitution, what would we consider hate speech? Could we get arrested for telling our best friend that they need to brush their teeth? There's no way to put a window on this kind of thing. Everyone would have to have a voice in what is and is not hate speech, and because there are so many people with so many opinions, pretty much everything can be considered offensive or rude. One thing cannot be always considered offensive. The diversity of today's America is not the same that is was back in 1776, and the amount of hate speech has been amazingly increased due to growing social media patterns. You can't just turn off facebook and instagram - that's where people express themselves, and that's where people are saying the wrong things.

  • The 1st amendment should protect hate speech

    The first amendment should protect hate speech for various reasons. Hate speech is giving your opinion rather it is morally good or bad. You may not agree with something someone has said, but they should have the right to express their feelings in that way. If they do not have the right to express their feelings using speech what is the point of the first amendment?

  • It's your opinion

    Hate speech should be protected in all ways possible. The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech, which includes hateful talk. Although it's considered rude and can affect others negatively, technically it's still legal because you're just stating your opinion. No laws can stop somebody from thinking the way they think, that's just the way they are. If a law was created to end all hate speech, our society would hardly be able to share opinions or feelings toward each other. For example, if somebody were homophobic, there's no way a law can change the way they think about gays. It's their opinion and you can't change that no matter what you do. Not everybody is going to have the same positive opinions about everything, including races and sexuality.

  • The 1st amendment should protect hate speech.

    I believe that the 1st amendment should protect hate speech because you should be able to say what you want, even if it's hate. It would be violating the right; freedom of speech if one was not able to say what they want freely. Hate speech is speech whether it's morally right or wrong. Speech is saying what you think or what you feel and hate speech falls into this category. Therefore, the 1st amendment should protect hate speech.

  • You should be able to say what you want, good or bad.

    Hate speech should be protected by the 1st amendment. You're thoughts are you're thoughts and if you're against something then you have the right to say how you feel. Where do you draw the line if its a hate comment or not? The government would be overwhelmed by all the hate comments if they were against the Constitution. Yes, hate comments aren't the right way to go, and there is many other ways to deal with a situation, but people will do what they want whether it's against the law or not. Without hate comments people wouldn't be able to speak out and say what they feel. Therefore, hate comments should be protected by the 1st amendment.

  • Yes, hate speech should be protected by the 1st amendment.

    I think that yes the first amendment should protect hate speech. Hate speech may be wrong, immoral, or mean, but you have a right to say what you want. It's just like commenting on something you don't like, the first amendment still allows you to say those thing. So why shouldn't it allow you to say hateful things against something you hate.

  • Don't use hate speech

    The first amendment should not protect hate speech, because hate can seriously affect somebody. Hate is a form of bullying and should not be legal at all. Hate is pointless and only makes situations worse. Bullying is not legal, so why should some forms be more legal than others. Hate is a horrible thing, and should not be covered by the first amendment. The first amendment was created so that the people could share their opinions, not bully others.

  • No it should not protect hate speech.

    People should not be able to say whatever they want because some things are very hurtful. It can cause people to kill themselves or get depressed. You should be able to say a lot of things such as your opinion, but only in a nice way. Hate speeches hurt people. Hate speeches are bullying, and bullying is not acceptable.

  • Yes it should.

    Hate speech, no matter how intolerant it is, is still considered speech. Therefore, the 1st Amendment will protect it. Is the hate speech morally correct? No. But can you just exclude certain things from the 1st Amendment just based on content? Also no. As long as it is just a thought, and not an action, it should be protected by the 1st Amendment.

  • No, "Free Speech" is a concept of the Bourgeois

    The western concept of "Free Speech" is a concept created by the bourgeoisies to divided the people freely so there can be an everlasting struggle between the common man while they exploit us all. Free speech does nothing but promote hate, violence, and greed in society and its proven, look at the United States, its filled with racial tension and hate. Then look at the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia where there were some barring of speech and there was no racial tension up until western powers caused it to collapse.

  • It should not protect hate speech.

    If you poke your stick at an angry lion, it WILL bite your head off if it gets near you. People need to learn their lessons. What many are doing today is that they are abusing people from different faiths, humiliating them, and spreading lies about them, and then defend their case by the first Amendment.

    And then people ask questions why some religious extremists killed some folks over a dumb movie? Learn your lessons humanity, because you never do learn from the past. You are responsible for feeding the fire instead of extinguishing it. Act like a civilized human being for once.

    If you have no compassion for your fellow brother or sister, you are not a human, you are a homo-sapien as far as it gets.

  • Simply it should not

    I believe the first amendment gives that permission and protection. We may agree with the words or not but we all have a right to saw it. Also as shown in our politically correct world, correctness is in the eye of the beholder...Ex. A black person can say ni... Without a problem but a white cannot...Go figure...

  • It doesn't give good reasons.

    Many people who are hateful of a certain subjects for no apparent reason to hate the subject thus adding nothing to the world but unhappy words. While when someone wants to add a reasonable opinion to the subject this is usually represented in a calm manner this helps the subject progress. So in my opinion hate speeches should not be protected by the first Amendment.

  • No it should not protect hate speech

    It shouldn't protect hate speech because people use it to make fun of people especially teenagers which cause them to harm themselves or possibly kill themselves. By having the right to say anything people could say one wrong thing and cause a person to immediately blow up and that isn't what I want to see our world as. Overall if people don't agree with this I think they should most definitely watch what they are saying.

  • No it should not protect hate speech.

    People should not be able to say whatever they want because some things are very hurtful. It can cause people to kill themselves or get depressed. You should be able to say a lot of things such as your opinion, but only in a nice way. Hate speeches hurt people. Hate speeches are bullying, and bullying is not acceptable.

  • It should not protect hate speech.

    The first amendment gives us freedom of speech. The first amendment also allows us the freedom of peaceable assemble. This means that anyone should be able to say what they want to say and where they want to say it. If somebody believes something they should be able to express themselves. If people disagree about this then they can debate against it however they please. We as citizens have the right to believe what we want to believe, this lets us have choices and is a main part of freedom.

  • People should have the freedom to say hate speeches

    Hate speeches comes from someone's feelings, or opinion of something. "You should have the right to say, what you want to say", stated from the first amendment. Hate speeches are not hurting our society because the United States is still, and always will be, the most visited and beautiful country. Everyone has something hateful to say about one another, or something wrong in their society, but that's ok because in the end we let it go and we don't care anymore.

  • No, and the law should keep rational

    Laws and values should be decided by/for all subjects involved and that in justice is to prevent social inconsistency. Law is about maintaining all of us' safety, allowing the vocal hate of something is propaganda and can easily lead to irrational dislike towards something.

    If you dislike something or someone, you should campaign it away from others with a rational point for people's safety from spreading hatred and to save them from social-function disabling visceral reaction from being hated. Visceral response is very real and scientifically verified, potentially psychologically and/or physically damage, can lead to anxiety/depression (which can press on companies and medical resources far beyond the available help and expense) and even suicide.

    Subjective cases with little data should be ignored as "personal" problems (especially where subjectively measured ambiguous value terms such as "evil" and "disrespectful" are used). The law exists to ensure psychological, property and physical safety for the living and the law enforcer should know better than to think otherwise as that is contrary to the purpose of law and therefore irrational. Just let every sane person to suggest rational, non-biased arguments and their campaigns when it comes to complaining about the ways of others. Hateful abuse is abuse.

  • Yes, but not in very severe and specific cases, such as blatantly racist/sexist cases or cases of impending violence.

    I can recall one recent particular case in which a white supremacist couple in the U.S. wanted to name their child Adolf Hitler and the state government intervened. The idea being that this child would have to endure ridicule and hatred which is ironic being that he'd be named after one of the most hate-filled dictators in history. I agree "hate speech" is hard to define, but in that particular case it appeared to me to be clearly hateful in that the parents are evoking a murderous figure with the name as well as subjecting their child to society's disapproval, this being a country of mixed cultures with descendants who died due to or fighting against the original Adolf Hitler. In the interest of society and this child, we collectively agreed, albeit indirectly through our government representatives, that the wellbeing of the child supersedes the 1st Amendment rights of the parents.

    The first amendment is the greatest law of the land because without a voice the people are powerless and paralyzed against whatever ruling class/party/dictator is currently is in power. But we do live in a more complicated era which the founders of the law never visualized, just look a little further down the constitution which once defined slaves as 2/5's of a free man. It took years before the 13th amendment barring slavery was passed and centuries later for the 19th amendment before women could vote. Fortunately we do not live in a world of absolutes.

    To unequivocally protect all speech regardless of the effects is idealist to the extreme. Let's say a (fill in the race) supremacist writes a pamphlet on the superiority of his/her race. It gains a small following who agree and spread the word to their children and neighbors that all other races are inferior and threaten the purity of their race and must be eradicated, enveloped in the gallantry of national pride it devolves into jingoism. People begin to think we should kick them out or inter them in camps, build giant walls to keep them out or simply wipe them off the face of the earth. It has happened and still happens today.

    I do still believe in the spirit of the law. I support people like Edward Snowden and his right to freely publish documents he's discovered even when it's critical to the government, I applaud his bravery. But if a less scrupulous person who is hateful gets their hands on some software which can take over our nuclear arm depots and decides to publish them on the internet. I have little problem stifling that instance of free speech. Diluting the 1st amendment is highly dangerous with many ramifications, but we can and already do make extremely specific exceptions, the only thing I feel is more dangerous is declaring absolutes.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Skynet says2013-07-17T02:22:14.227
Would it protect people who make speeches about how they hate people who practice hate speech?