The Evolution Of Hate Speech

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791. By adding the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers hoped to protect all men’s rights. The first - and arguably most important - amendment stated that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” (“The Constitution” Amendment 1). The first amendment and its free speech clause took inspiration from Enlightenment thinker John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who believed that government functioned best when everyone shared opinions and debate freely. Because free speech protected people from government censorship, hateful speech began to emerge in public. Racist, sexist, homophobic, and other harmful language began spreading, growing more powerful with the internet’s creation;
Through free speech, the Founding Fathers hoped that all citizens would have a voice in the government. Today, free speech is an essential part of the American democratic system utilized by everyone regardless of gender, sexuality, race, and religion; unfortunately, when free speech exists, hate speech naturally develops. According the American Bar Association, hate speech is speech, “that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits” (“Students in Action”). Hate speech, contrary to popular belief, has absolute protection under the first amendment. Hate speech, however, becomes unprotected when it precipitates an immediate, violent reaction. For example, if a white man calls a minority by a racial slur and the minority fights back, the speech most likely will lose any protection under the first amendment. It is important to note that the first amendment only protects hate speech from government censorship. A boss could still fire an employee for utilizing hate speech in or out of the
For example, a neo-Nazi group, lead by Frank Collin, requested a permit to parade in Skokie. When the town denied the request, a debate broke out that eventually reached the Supreme Court. The neo-Nazis were attacked in the media, and the only group that offered to defend the neo-Nazis was the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]. Jewish groups banded together to create ‘hate speech’ exceptions regarding Naxi speech, claiming that the swatstika and other Nazi symbols incited violence. Despite Jewish pleas, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Collin had the right to march in Skokie, despite the content of his speech (Wolfson 125). Many decried the decision, claiming that ‘hate speech’ regulations should be put in place. A neo-Nazi marching in Skokie is incredibly distasteful and reprehensible; however, “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind,” (Mill 52). The neo-Nazis’ intentions were horrible, but limitations placed on them would mean future groups could not voice their