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

[Cabal]

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hand, 21% students -- and 30% of self-described liberals -- agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was an “outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed.”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

[brushfire]

...but what about yelling fire at a cross burning?

[Danke]

College: Saying 'politically correct' is a microaggression
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/college-s...RTxC8GKuy7P.99

[Ronin Truth]

Is PC speech a national CONstitutional first amendment requirement?

[timosman]

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.

[Ronin Truth]

...but what about yelling fire at a cross burning?

...but what about yelling fire at a witch burning?

[The Gold Standard]

Is anything protected by the 1st amendment? Or any amendment for that matter?

[Acala]

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.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Not only is it protected, anyone who unironically uses the term "hate speech" is an idiot. Every single one.

[Southron]

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.

[osan]

Is this a serious question?

[OReich]

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.

[Ronin Truth]

Not if you can get arrested for it.

[willwash]

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.

[rg17]

Who voted no?

[presence]

I hate PC motherfuckers. They can suck it.

[sparebulb]

There is no such thing as "hate speech".

Nevertheless, I voted "YES".

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

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.

[Cabal]

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?

[Sonny Tufts]

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.

[Cabal]

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.

[Sonny Tufts]

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).

[VIDEODROME]

Hate speech shouldn't be protected. I fully embrace Political Correctness.

See what I did there. Is that protected? Or fraudulent misrepresentation?

[Cabal]

not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Should that be the case? Or not?

See what I did there.

Not really, no.

[TommyJeff]

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.

[kfarnan]

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

[r3volution 3.0]

...but what about yelling fire at a cross burning?

[KingNothing]

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.

[KingNothing]

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.

[LibertyEagle]

The 1st Amendment was for the purpose of protecting unpopular speech. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for it.