Hate Speech Should Be Protected Under The First Amendment

Written by James Madison, the first ten amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights sought to limit government power and protect individual’s natural right such as freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, and many more. Among these amendments, the First Amendment solely protects an individual’s right to speak and worship freely. However, although many individuals are supportive of these rights, discrepancies exist between the context of the extent to which type of speech the First Amendment should protect. These differences in ideology are largely responsible for the debate surrounding whether or not hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment. This debate over hate speech has been

First, there are those who argue that hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment, no matter the circumstance. Stakeholders for this position tend to include Conservative politicians, judges, and lawyers. This group stresses the idea that any individual rights that’s bestowed onto the people by the Constitution should never be tampered with. However, the opposing side are those who believe the First Amendment should not protect hate speech in any circumstances. Those involved in this side of the argument tend to be Democrats, Socialists, few Moderates, and college students. This group believes the First Amendment should no longer protect those who incite hate speech and instead, imprison or charge them with a hefty fine. Lastly, the third position for the hate speech debate are those who stand on the middle ground between the two conflicting sides. Individuals in this group realize the importance of free speech in the First Amendment but advocate for more restraints and limits to hate speech rather than the complete ban of hate speech. The primary stakeholders involved in this group include the majority of Moderates, and educators. Although the stakeholders of each of these positions remain firm in their specific ideologies about freedom of speech, all groups place value on an individual’s natural

More specifically, individuals in this group hold a more moderate view of hate-speech. While this group agrees with pro-hate speech advocators on how completely banning hate speech contravenes the U.S. Constitution, they also agree with the dangers hate speech can institute. However, unlike activists for pro-ban hate speech, entities in this group argue for more restrictions to be imposed on regulating hate-speech instead of the complete ban on hate-speech. A supporter for this centrist view on hate speech, Noah Berlatsky tackles this position in his 2017 article “Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America”. Berlatsky pronounces how if certain groups who practice hate speech such as Nazis, those who hold extreme racist or authoritarian views, are silenced, other groups will be silenced as well. Therefore, he concludes how, “You need to protect people who hate marginalized people, or marginalized people will be targeted next” (Berlatsky par. 2). In the article, the author includes a quote by John Moore on how how society should not defend Nazis “and other purveyors of hate speech, [instead] a more balanced approach is needed” (Berlatsky par. 1). Therefore, the author also agrees with pro-ban hate speech supporters on how defending Nazis does not strengthen the system of free