Hate Speech and The First Amendment

 

In most colleges and universities Code of Conduct book, you will find that students, staff, and faculty are prohibited from the use of hate speech; disciplinary actions can occur if someone is found using this type of speech towards another person.  Controversy arises against hate speech on whether or not it is considered free speech, and should it be protected under the First Amendment? In our textbook, Mark Timmons defines hate speech as “language (oral or written) that expresses strong hatred, contempt, or intolerance for some social group, particularly social groups classified according to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or nationality”. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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. . .” There are a couple of reasons for the First Amendment, but two in particularly are to “foster the greatest amount of speech” and “enable the truth to emerge from diverse opinions”. I agree with Charles R. Lawrence III that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech because hate speech uses words that are intended to injure the victim rather than find out truth or initiate conversation. When hate speech takes the form of face-to-face insults aimed at an individual or a small group of persons, it falls within the “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protection. In the situation of discriminatory harassment, “fighting” words are “words, pictures, or symbols that are commonly understood to bear hatred or contempt for human beings based on their race, sexual orientation, etc”. Words that are intended to “incite and immediate breach of peace” are not constitutionally protected. Hate Speech is not deserving of First Amendment protection because of the “immediacy of the injurious impact of racial insults”. When someone calls another person an offensive word such as a Jap, nigger, or faggot, Lawrence equates the experience to being slap in the face. The injury is immediate and harm cannot be avoided because it is both “clear and present”. Hate Speech injures the victim by a dehumanizing message. The victims are bombarded with some feelings of anger, shock, rage, and in some cases a feeling of worthlessness. John Arthur, a defendent of hate speech being a protected form of speech, believes that it does not cause harm to others. Arthur gave an example of how a person is wronged but not harmed when someone breaks into their car, takes nothing, and does no damage. I disagree with the idea that the person was not harmed, because even though the victim had nothing taken out of their car, they might have to pay for the damage that might have occured from the person breaking inside the car, which might cause a financial burden. They also might have to deal with worrying about whether or not someone else might break into their car again, or even the thought of having something worse be done to  them in the future. This worry can bring about paranoia, which is a mental  burden. Even though we cannot always visually see someone being harmed, that does not mean that it does not occur. Harms come in different forms; they are not just physical, but also financial and psychological. Because Hate Speech falls within the “fighting words” exception, and it fails to achieve any purpose of the First Amendment, it should not be considered free speech.

Advertisements