Hate Speech Let’s imagine we live in a society with a government that is able to regulate what we say. We’d be controlled by a system and we would not be able to do anything about it. And even if we were to protest and demonstrate against that government, we could have the possibility of being thrown in jail, just because someone thinks that it may be "hate speech.” I believe that hate speech is and should be protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the government should not be able to prohibit what we say. The first amendment states that we have the freedom of speech; that freedom is extended to hate speech in any form (unless it will of course pose immediate danger), including music lyrics or publications. Hate speech is different from hate crimes, if the punishment for hate speech is equal to the one for hate crimes, nobody will be able to get there point across if anyone finds it relatively negative. If the government prohibits hate speech, it will have to prohibit all speech, somebody should be able to share what they are feeling, even if it is …show more content…
Eugene Volokh, an American law professor at UCLA, says that, “There are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that they are likely to start an immediate fight.” When we start taking away rights from within amendments it makes it look as though we are allowed to just break the law all the time. What if all the sudden the army started living with us; when there wasn’t even a war, or if the Police just broke into your house without a reason or a warrant. We cannot allow anyone, let alone the government, take away our