View Poll Results: Is 'hate speech' protected under the 1st Amendment?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    46 90.20%
  • No

    1 1.96%
  • I don't know / Abstain / Other

    4 7.84%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: Is 'hate speech' protected under the 1st Amendment?

  1. #1

    Question Is 'hate speech' protected under the 1st Amendment?

    Sorry, kids, the 1st Amendment does protect 'hate speech'

    A recent poll of college students’ attitudes toward free speech (in general and on campus) is a mixed bag.

    The survey by McLaughlin & Associates for the William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale shows that 87% of respondents agreed with this statement: “There is educational value in listening to and understanding views and opinions that I may disagree with and are different from my own.”

    That’s good news that runs counter to the narrative that campuses have been seized by a speech-stultifying political correctness.

    On the other hand, 21% students -- and 30% of self-described liberals -- agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was an “outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed.”

    Also remarkable was the fact that 35% of respondents agreed that “hate speech is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.”

    When the editor-in-chief of the student newspaper at Williams College recanted an editorial that had suggested that “some speech is too harmful to invite to campus,” she added this qualification: “Students should not face restrictions in terms of the speakers they bring to campus, provided of course that these speakers do not participate in forms of legally recognized hate speech.”

    The problem is that there is no such thing.

    As Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school pointed out on his blog in the Washington Post: “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the 1st Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.”

    (Volokh’s parenthesis about “whatever exactly that might mean” points to a different issue: the defining down of the word “hate.” Opposing same-sex marriage, a position embraced not that long ago by President Obama, is sometimes viewed as anti-gay hate speech. So is criticism of the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League asserted that a Jon Stewart skit involving a Nativity scene "ranks with the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television.")

    So where does the idea that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech come from?

    ...
    First Amendment to the United States Constitution

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    ...but what about yelling fire at a cross burning?

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  4. #3
    College: Saying 'politically correct' is a microaggression
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/college-s...RTxC8GKuy7P.99
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  5. #4
    Is PC speech a national CONstitutional first amendment requirement?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    College: Saying 'politically correct' is a microaggression
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/college-s...RTxC8GKuy7P.99
    We have a real war going on for 14 years with men coming back home in body bags and these pussies are talking about microaggression.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by brushfire View Post
    ...but what about yelling fire at a cross burning?
    ...but what about yelling fire at a witch burning?

  8. #7
    Is anything protected by the 1st amendment? Or any amendment for that matter?

  9. #8
    The 1st Amendment doesn't protect anything and it doesn't bestow rights. It restrains government. Failing to keep that clear results in muddled articles like that in the OP. For example, if a student at Yale (which did the study) were asked "Is the university prohibition on hate speech a violation of the First Amendment?" The correct answer is "no". Yale University is not restrained in any way by the First Amendment because it is not the government.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Not only is it protected, anyone who unironically uses the term "hate speech" is an idiot. Every single one.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  12. #10
    On the other hand, 21% students -- and 30% of self-described liberals -- agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was an “outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed.”

    Also remarkable was the fact that 35% of respondents agreed that “hate speech is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.”
    Nice.
    Equality is a false god.

    Armatissimi e Liberissimi

  13. #11
    Is this a serious question?
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  14. #12
    Leftists have always been the biggest fascists. They can't even argue for equality without complaining that evil, malicious ppl are secretly coordinating to ruin poor ppl's lives. Seriously, leftism has been built around hate and class warfare bull$#@! from the very beginning.
    Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
    This you will do, that's our strong, firm belief.
    Hail to the one we selected as commander,
    Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief!

  15. #13
    Not if you can get arrested for it.

  16. #14
    I abstain because I do not acknowledge "hate" speech as a category of speech, therefore I cannot vote either way on whether it is protected. It's like asking if unicorns like to eat carrots.
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834

  17. #15
    Who voted no?

  18. #16
    I hate PC motherfuckers. They can suck it.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    There is no such thing as "hate speech".

    Nevertheless, I voted "YES".
    "Every post is about Hillary and pedophilia. I love them both soooo much!!!!!!!" Zippyjuan

  21. #18
    It is the very rancidified group-identity zealous "progressives" who blurt out "hate speech"; furthermore, they only believe in freedom of speech for themselves (99% of them) and if you are characterized by the following groups: "white," heterosexual," "Christian" (especially if you are a patriot), "male," and "conservative" (including conservatarians) you are the insurmountable oppressors and the first amendment never applies to you (in all sincerity, the Bill of Rights is always discarded by contemporary progressive and neocon governments for everyone including minorities). I'm 4 of those things as-well as a natural born non-theist with Asperger's syndrome who is proud of being non-afflicted with a victimhood mentality.
    Last edited by Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist; 11-07-2015 at 10:05 AM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    I abstain because I do not acknowledge "hate" speech as a category of speech, therefore I cannot vote either way on whether it is protected.
    Are you implying there exists a category of speech that would not be protected under the 1st Amendment?
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Are you implying there exists a category of speech that would not be protected under the 1st Amendment?
    Of course. For example, fraudulent misrepresentations, libel, and slander can be the basis for civil suits regardless of the First Amendment. Fraud can even be a criminal act.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Of course. For example, fraudulent misrepresentations, libel, and slander can be the basis for civil suits regardless of the First Amendment. Fraud can even be a criminal act.
    Fraud tends to involve more than someone just communicating something. Even the NAP can make a case against fraud.

    As for civil defamation cases, there's a reason they aren't criminal, and that reason happens to be its contention with the "right of free expression." Surely that must qualify as a sort of protection. As I understand it, these types of cases are also notoriously difficult to pursue and prove.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    As I understand it, these types of cases are also notoriously difficult to pursue and prove.
    True enough, but the fact that the law allows civil suits in the first place means that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. You also have Holmes's dictum about falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic, and the hypothetical about conveying battle plans to the enemy during wartime. Surely these actions can be prohibited (indeed, the latter case would constitute treason).

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Hate speech shouldn't be protected. I fully embrace Political Correctness.
    See what I did there. Is that protected? Or fraudulent misrepresentation?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.
    Should that be the case? Or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    See what I did there.
    Not really, no.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Of course it does.
    there isn't any need to protect loving speech that 100% of the population agrees with, or which doesnt offend anyone else.

  30. #26
    Public agents/servants are subject to the constitution. Private organizations are another matter.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by brushfire View Post
    ...but what about yelling fire at a cross burning?

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Is anything protected by the 1st amendment? Or any amendment for that matter?
    Good point. All rights and freedoms are actually protected far more brave and strong than anyone who actually gives a $#@! about the microaggressions spoken by some other kid on a campus.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by kfarnan View Post
    Public agents/servants are subject to the constitution. Private organizations are another matter.
    Right, but we should all foster an environment in which free speech is preached and embraced.

    Honest expressions of freedom are important, and actual debates based on the free exchange of ideas are the only things that have ever changed the world.

  34. #30
    The 1st Amendment was for the purpose of protecting unpopular speech. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for it.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •