The first amendment of the United States constitution is one of the more controversial ones written. Stating that; “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, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Questions are raised; is hate speech one of the protected rights in this amendment? What if a religion requires sacrificing another’s life or permits rape/assault? And one that is incredibly prevalent in today’s society with the Black Lives Matters protests occurring, what defines a peaceful protest?
Throughout America’s history, there have been additions to this amendment to ensure the safety and the preservation of citizen’s rights and lives. Such as disallowing shouting “fire” in a crowded building because it causes panic, putting other’s lives in danger. Although while having the ability to cause violence, hate speech has not been legally restricted because of how broad of a topic it is. There is no definite definition for the term because while some phrases can be incredibly offensive to some, others may not be affected by it. An example of this being Brandenburg versus Ohio in 1969; where KKK member Clarence Brandenburg made a public speech in Ohio describing the “revengeance” of certain races and the US government. Brandenburg was then arrested for his hate-fueled speech but his conviction was overturned on account that the charge violated his first amendment right to free speech. While I in no way, shape, or form agree with Brandenburg’s cause; I do think the ruling was just. On account that if he was sentenced for his words then a very slippery, dangerous slope would occur. Anyone could be arrested for saying anything that another person deems “hateful”, thereby blurring out the free speech portion of the first amendment.
Another example of this seen through the first amendment’s right to assembly in the Skokie case from 1977. Where the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of America walked the streets of Skokie, Illinois where about 40,500 of their 70,000 residents were Jewish, most of whom survived the Holocaust concentration camps. The Nazi Party was told they were not permitted to hold their gathering, because it would cause great distress to the Jewish residence and would possibly result in violence. But the supreme court ruled that the Nazi Party’s first amendment right to assemble had been violated, and they had a right to do so as long as a permit was acquired. The same as with the Brandenburg case in terms of not agreeing with what the group represents; if the Skokie case ruled the opposite way then any group perceived to be threatening, or simply disliked, would not have the right to protest or simply gather. This may have led to those participating in the Black Lives Matters protests to be arrested or denied their right to speak out for what they believe in.
Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
PAS #6
Hi Sarah,
I think the first amendment is extremely important to Americans across the country. When talking about its relation to hate speech it can be complicated. We’ve been talking about this in one of my other classes and when talking about this it is important to understand when speech isn’t protected by the first amendment. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment. However, when the speech turns into a threat then the speech turns into a hate crime and it is not protected by the first amendment. Interesting blog!
-Brendan