Hate speech is defined by the American Library Association as, “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons.” There has been a debate for a very long time in America about who has the right to say what, and whether or not they should be limited. One side feels that their right to a freedom of speech is being violated by not being allowed to express their beliefs, albeit offensive and hateful. The other side of this debate feels that allowing people to express their beliefs restricts their basic civil rights, and they feel that their freedom impinges on their equality. Hate speech should obviously always be discouraged, but it gets difficult when you consider …show more content…
Volokh states again in his article that “threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s ‘hate speech’; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone…” Threatening to injure or kill someone is illegal is a crime, but the additional racism and/or religious discrimination is just salt in the wound. Even so, the “fighting words” law is extremely specific-as said by Ken White for the Los Angeles Times, “it 's limited to in-person face-to-face insults directed at a particular person and likely to provoke a violent response from that person.” The specific exception to the First Amendment is very specific, and hate speech is still protected. These loopholes and laws give people more leeway in saying hateful things both in person and