Déliquance verbale, Police de la Pensée, Free Speech? or Hate Speech? Exploring Constitutional Conflicts

First step visit Introduction to the Free Speech Clause . An ongoing debate, The Absolutist Approach, The Categorical Approach, The Balancing Approach have all their aficionados;)

Answer all the following questions.

1. If a referendum were held today on whether to adopt the First Amendment, do you think it would pass?

2. Polls show that most Americans support free speech in theory, but when asked more specific questions such as "Should Americans be free to advocate communism?" most persons polled are far less willing to support free speech values. How to you explain this?

3. Which of the three general approaches to First Amendment analysis is best? Why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?

4. Which of the values served by the Free Speech Clause to you consider to be the most important? Why?

5. What are some of the costs of protecting free speech? Which are the most significant costs in your opinion?

6. The First Amendment says that Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech"? Is that different that a prohibition on abridging "speech"?

7. What does the prohibition on abridging the freedom of the press protect that would not be protected by the prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech? Are reporters protected in ways that other Americans are not?

Then visit

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=internet_hate_speech

Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one’s mind just because it is one’s mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity.

But,

Visit

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=fighting_words

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=true_threats

Leaving you with,

However, the First Amendment provides broad protection to offensive, repugnant and hateful expression. Political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment, and discrimination against viewpoints runs counter to free-speech principles. Much hate speech qualifies as political, even if misguided. Regulations against hate speech are sometimes imposed because the government (at any level) disagrees with the views expressed. Such restrictions may not survive constitutional scrutiny in court.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU (1997) noted (albeit in a non-hate speech context) that the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, akin to the print medium. In other words, online hate speech receives as much protection as a hate-speech pamphlet distributed by the Ku Klux Klan.
Given these factors — high protection for political speech, hostility to viewpoint discrimination and great solicitude for online speech — much hate speech is protected. However, despite its text — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” — the First Amendment does not safeguard all forms of speech.
Unprotected categories:

Unless online hate speech crosses the line into incitement to imminent lawless action or true threats, the speech receives protection under the First Amendment.

Essay : How to react to hate speech? When you can't just silence by law the speech you don't want to hear, what are the lawful actions you may engaged in to respond?