On the Issue of Hate Speech

In 2005, if the burning of the cross could be proved to be "intentional intimidation," local governments were allowed to impose penalties on members of KKK (Turley, Jonathan.Washingtonpost.com). However, since the government can easily state the history of symbols, regardless of behavior itself, it is pointless to decide which boundary to impose. In the above lawsuit on the theft courage law, the court also considered the ability of the government to modify the definition.

In world democracy, the United States has its own fair share of hatred speech. There are many controversies about whether to regulate disliked words. When analyzing the concept of freedom of speech, we can not ignore what it does not happen in a vacuum. Various types of depreciation are generated from racial, religious, racial and gender stereotypes. Freedom of speech basically includes all other basic human rights. Therefore, as recognized by natural rights

The framework of this debate - a difference between free and disliked speech - is disappointing. "Hate speech" is basically a pattern of speech or discourse. Whether speech hates or not depends on the speaker 's intention, and sometimes the influence on the audience. "Disliked speech" can be meaningfully juxtaposed with other phenomena in the family such as "political" or "controversial" speech. And the background. However, "freedom of speech" is not such a remark.

I declare a statement such as the so-called "Hate Speech" exception in the first amendment, or "Statement of Freedom, This is a Hate Speech" or "When is the Speech Stopped and Hate Speech Started?" I have heard. However, the first amendment has no exception in hating the speech. The disliked idea (whatever it means) is protected by other ideas like the first fix. People can freely condemn Islam or Muslim, Jew, black, white, illegal alien, or indigenous people and can condemn capitalism, socialism, or Democratic Party or Republican Party