Below is my column in The Hill on the increasing claims that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Even dictionaries are now repeating this false claim and polls show that a majority of students believe that hate speech falls outside of the scope of protected speech. For those who often rail against “disinformation,” this is a particularly dangerous false narrative meant to support expanded censorship and speech controls. Even Salman Rushdie has been been invoked in the campaign against hate speech. We should all denounce hate speech but that is not a license for the government to censor or ban such speech.
Here is the column:
Author Salman Rushdie, still recovering from the latest assassination attempt, once said freedom of speech must include “the freedom to offend” or “it ceases to exist.” Rushdie has risked his very life to support that principle after being put under a death threat by Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 for allegedly insulting Islam.
Recently, when Secretary of State Antony Blinken responded to the attack on Rushdie, he notably attacked the role of hate speech as one of “the pernicious forces that seek to undermine these rights.” It was a curious spin. Rushdie has fought limitations on speech and was himself accused of a type of hate speech toward Islam. Due to his alleged blasphemy, his accusers declared not just his right to speech but his right to life as forfeit.
The use of Rushdie to further calls to curtail hate speech may be bizarre but it is not surprising. There is a concerted effort by the Biden administration and many Democrats to censor anything deemed hateful on the internet and social media.
That was evident at the start of a recent House hearing on the government’s role in censoring citizens on social media. As one of the witnesses, I was taken aback by the opening statement of the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.). Besides opposing an investigation into the role of the FBI and other agencies in such censorship, Plaskett declared that “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.
Hate speech is indeed a scourge in our nation, but it is also protected under our Constitution. Yet many politicians and pundits are using this false constitutional claim to defend potentially unconstitutional actions by the government.
Recently, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer, said that “if you espouse hate … you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
It is not an argument that improves with repetition. Yet, there have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former journalist and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has insisted that while “the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate’ … it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”
Actually, It is not a design flaw but the very essence of the Framers’ design.
The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly stating: “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.”
While the Supreme Court has allowed limited exceptions, it does not bestow on the government the open right to strip protection of speech because it is deemed “hateful.” Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
Courts have long held the line against efforts to ban hate speech, as one did in 1995 by striking down Stanford’s hate-speech ban. Courts have long rejected such labels as excuses for sanctioning speech. In 1928, a man was convicted for blasphemy in Little Rock, Ark., after putting a poster in a shop window reading “Evolution is true.” Many also thought that message was harmful.
More recently, a federal court enjoined a New York effort to ban “hateful conduct” on social media. In Volokh v. James, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. granted a preliminary injunction on the basis that “the Hateful Conduct Law” is blatantly unconstitutional, which it most certainly is. The law defined “hateful conduct” as “the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” [N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a)].
He wrote that “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
The work of conscientious judges like Carter ordinarily blunts the impact of false constitutional claims, even when widely held. But this myth is now being used to justify a wide array of censorship. It is the very type of “disinformation” that many Democrats love to cite as the basis for silencing others.
Social media companies have used “hate speech” to justify censorship of opposing views. LinkedIn reportedly has added its company name to this ignoble effort, according to an Air Force veteran whose account was disabled after criticizing calls for loan forgiveness. The site reportedly declared that opposing the Democratic plan for loan forgiveness is “hate speech.” TikTok labeled as hate speech a video supporting Kyle Rittenhouse, acquitted of killing protesters in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020. The video discussed the effort by Arizona State University students to ban Rittenhouse from campus.
The hate-speech designation is often used to justify punishing or silencing opposing views. When Michigan football head coach Jim Harbaugh recently made a pro-life comment, it was declared hate speech by some, and there were calls for his termination. By labeling some views as “hateful,” social media companies claim full license to silence opposing views.
In a chilling statement before a recent House hearing, former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli was asked about the standard of censorship by Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) and explained that Twitter tries not to just balance “free speech versus safety.” Rather, it would ask “free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.” Rep. Stansbury responded: “Exactly.”
So, by declaring speech harmful or hateful, these companies can make “nuanced” choices as to who should be allowed to speak.
The repetition of such false claims on hate speech being unprotected has had its impact; polls show almost half of college students believe hate speech is not constitutionally protected. But it is particularly chilling for one of the nation’s most powerful politicians, sworn to “support and defend the Constitution,” to show either a lack of knowledge or lack of fealty to the First Amendment.
Hating hate speech is no vice — but it is also no license for censorship.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Maj229: Good, but you left out one of the most important quotes: Chief Justice Roberts,
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011) (case mentioned by Prof. Turley)
“Fox News Declines to Air Ad Slamming Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham’s Election Texts: ‘They Lied to You!’”
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/they-lied-to-you-fox-news-rejects-ad-spotlighting-tucker-carlson-laura-ingrahams-texts-from-dominion-lawsuit-per-report/
“Fox News Star Says Network Won’t Let Him Cover Fox-Dominion Lawsuit”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-media-anchor-howard-kurtz-says-network-wont-let-him-cover-fox-dominion-lawsuit
“Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed Election Fraud Falsehoods
“The conservative media mogul made the remarks under oath last month in a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/business/media/fox-news-dominion-rupert-murdoch.html
Dominion’s latest filing, which includes Murdoch’s testimony: https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/D8File/2023/02/27/2023-02-27-redacted-dominions-answering-brief-in-opp-to-smj.pdf
ATS is starting another conspiracy theory using partial quotes that are meaningless in this court action. He is linking but doesn’t quote what is of importance or why. If ATS had something useful to say he would say it, but as usual it is all hype riddled with partial quotes or statements that are meaningless to the final decision.
He has already made his decision. I haven’t but knowing ATS’s track record, whatever he says, the opposite is probably true.
Allan / S Meyer’s daily insults, example #1010.
See comment with the quote “There is no fallout.” https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/28/buttigiegs-derailment-ntsb-exposes-east-palestine-claim-as-misinformation/comment-page-1/#comment-2266435
Amen
The problem is that so-called “hate speech” is not quantifiable. What may be hate speech to one may not be to another. Jon refers to the Klan and Westboro Baptist as “hateful” but the real issue with them is that they offend some, which speech often does. I personally consider the rhetoric coming out of BLM to be especially hateful, along with the actions of the “woke” as they attempt to rewrite history, language and everything else to create a society of their own liking – which actually dates back to the 1840s when Marx saw blacks as an instrument for revolution.
semcgowanjr,
Well said.
Seems the trend is anything wokeists find offensive automatically becomes hate speech and has to be silenced, censored, canceled.
Their new tactic is changing works that are too sensitive from the original works. The good professor mentioned this recently with his discussing the “update” portions of Roald Dahl’s classic books.” https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/23/the-rise-of-the-woke-whangdoodles-english-company-rewrites-dahl-classics-to-remove-offensive-words/
Now, they are “updating” Ian Fleming’s James Bond books.
Give it time. They will try to “update” Orwell and Huxley into something so grotesque it will be unrecognizable from the original. But make wokeism look all warm and fuzzy.
Svelaz, the creep arguing favor of censorship, already has about 20 comments on this one issue. He will comment 200 times..all, ironically, in favor of stopping others from having the right to opine.
Hullbobby, not arguing in favor of censorship. Just pointing out the fact that free speech is not absolute and the private sector can censor speech for whatever reason. Both of those facts are not in dispute.
Still whining about my posting? I”m flattered. You post as much as I do and I don’t whine and complain about your postings. You’re such a whiner Hullbobby. Nobody likes a whiner.
“Hullbobby, not arguing in favor of censorship.”
You always argue in favor of censorship to ideas you dislike. Keep cutting-and-pasting. That is what two-year olds do.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“You always argue in favor of censorship to ideas you dislike.”
Nope. You’re on a full on BS bender today S. Meyer. No wonder you post anonymously. I’d be embarrassed too.
All one has to do is look at the email chains between you and John Say. You made an A$$ of yourself repeatedly. John showed you where you were wrong, conflicted, or lying, and you continued playing the same song.
Example of hate speech: “Kill the Ump!”
No, that’s not hate speech. It can be criminal incitement, which is a recognized exception to the first amendment, and therefore you can actually be imprisoned for it, but only if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that (1) you subjectively intended and (2) it was objectively likely that someone would hear you and (3) immediately act as you instructed. All three of these elements are necessary for it not to be protected speech. Note that no actual murder is required; if you intended to provoke a murder on the spot, and it was likely that your words would indeed do so, then the fact that it didn’t happen won’t save you.
“The categorical rejection of the lab theory is only the latest media narrative proven to be false.”
So at what point does the American public stop believing and trusting those who are so consistently wrong?
At some point, those concerned about their about their own self-preservation have to say: You know what. That restaurant keeps poisoning customers. I don’t think I’m going there.
Oops. Posted under the wrong column.
Still good.
Sam,
Distrust in MSM, various government institutions, politicians, (and now, I guess Woody Harrelson by some) is the reason some of them are screaming the loudest, namely MSM,
“Why dont you trust us?!?!?!?!”
What distinguishes America is Liberty. Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Offend are our Hallmarks that have made America, the Beautiful. Nothing is more beautiful than Freedom of Expression. The Pigs that run FaceBook, who suppress Free Speech in the name of Community Standards are the worst of all enemies of mankind. FaceBook has disgraced itself and continues to bring disgrace to American values.
“The Pigs that run FaceBook” have their own First Amendment rights.
If you support the First Amendment, you must support the rights of private companies to refuse to host speech that’s inconsistent with their Terms.
It’s not legal when the government pressures said companies to censor what they don’t like. That’s a major no no and against the law.
“Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
The Left desires to ban that (“hate speech”) which by its own admission is incapable of clear, precise, objective definition — that which is *felt*, after the fact, by some specially protected group.
That is unadulterated, emotion-driven mob rule used to destroy free speech.
Sam, some hate speech is NOT protected. Most of it is. Free speech protections are not absolute however. The Supreme Court has made that distinction multiple times.
“Sam, some hate speech is NOT protected.”
Since you seem to know what the concept “hate speech” means, do tell: What is its objective definition?
Here’s a leg up: “I know it when I see it” is *not* an objective definition.
And another leg up: The feelings of the eternally aggrieved is also *not* an objective definition.
Please define what some “hate speech” is and which “hate speech” is not protected. You state conclusions without citing any case, whether U.S. Supreme Court or Appellate Court, to support it. All you have provided in your arguments are conclusions without any foundation to support them, i.e., Supreme Court case law.
The Supreme Court, from Brandenburg to present, has consistently stated there is no “hate speech. The Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam 582 U.S. ___ (2017) that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are “racially disparaging”.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate”. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).”
Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote:
“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”
Now please provide case law to define “hate speech” and to support your conclusion that it can be censored or regulated.
Maj229,
Snyder V. Phelps.
lin, at 1:05
Svelaz, at 1:15
You’re WELcome.
If you don’t think the country has moved sickeningly to the left just know that within our lifetimes we have gone from the ACLU defending Nazis right to march in a Jewish community, Skokie, to the organization now being used to argue against free speech. The left has taken over the universities to the extent that the leftists are now taking over medicine, law, journalism and everythign else. It is over.
Hullbobby, you’re being way too melodramatic. The ACLU still protects the right of nazis to engage in their offensive speech. Republicans are also against free speech. They have engaged in banning books they don’t like. Squelching any attempts at discussing issues like CRT in schools, or even anything related to gender identity. In Florida they are currently trying to stop CRT from being discussed in higher education because they don’t like that point of view. Clearly that is a violation of the 1st amendment. Seeking punishment for bringing up certain subjects or not being able to answer questions about gender identity when asked by students in high school are constantly put over the heads of teachers.
The right is just as guilty of pushing for censorship and stifling speech. Turley only brings it up with faint mention of it on very rare occasions..
Send your kids to my school and see how fast you are all-in on banning books.
F’ing clown.
“F’ing clown.”
Svelaz believes discriminating against the type of information grade schools offer is anti-free speech. When the right demands elementary school libraries remove books regarding all genres of sex, he complains there is a restriction on freedom of speech. Copy-and-paste Svelaz cannot paste his rhetoric in the right places.
What type of man is he?
Allan / S Meyer’s daily insults, example #1006.
This is your #1006 reply, but you haven’t said anything of value.
“Svelaz believes discriminating against the type of information grade schools offer is anti-free speech. When the right demands elementary school libraries remove books regarding all genres of sex, he complains there is a restriction on freedom of speech. Copy-and-paste Svelaz cannot paste his rhetoric in the right places.”
ATS, you find the above directed to Svelaz to be an insult. You must have the same type of moral disabilities he has.
Allan / S Meyer’s daily insults, example #1007.
Thank you for the notification ATS and you others as well.
—
Self-deleted comment: >>Darren is the one deleting comments. You can tell a lot about a person by how they “moderate” comments.”
=====
You are trying to trick people into believing you have no control over what is deleted. You do, and you caused others to have their comments deleted along with yours. That is not very nice or friendly to others on the blog.
I called you out on that before and one can go to the following address and look around.
“I expect the following comments to be deleted.
Anonymous the Stupid #1 “You’re obsessed ”
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150023
ATS has utilized WordPress’s censorship to his own advantage. ATS is not to be trusted.
Allan / S Meyer’s daily insults, example #1008.
Since you like old comments including yourself, I will post a bit about you in a past reply to Jaelyn.
—
“are you sure she deleted it and not Darren or someone else?”
Jaelyn, I am as sure as I can be. ATS uses an address that causes deletion by WP or a moderator, but ATS controls what address he uses.
One can note his recent quirky insults to me appearing in your inbox. Though appearing in your inbox, the majority will not appear in the blog as intended since ATS controls the address he uses.
I proved the self-deletions about a year ago when I predicted which of his posts (along with the rest of the chain) would be deleted, and they were. I did that a couple of times.
When he becomes very frustrated, he has a meltdown, and that is when he starts deleting himself and blaming others. He tries to hide among the anonymous posters, but the types of a post he writes are almost always his. He also uses pretend friends and sometimes has an icon and a name. Jonathan was one, and green anonymous was another. He has used many others.
He is a deceiver and a liar. He has been wrong on almost every significant topic. He hides being wrong under anonymous with a generic icon.
It is helpful for me to label him as Anonymous the Stupid or ATS. The abbreviation was from another blogger. It is a rule of mine, always label your enemy.
He acts like a Stalinist supporter and might arise from a family that was Stalinist and didn’t join the New Left that tried to separate the murders from their Stalinist behavior. I know I am stretching parts where I lack knowledge, but one can follow known trends and Anonymous the Stupid fits.
He uses Alinskyite tactics. So did Hillary, and Saul Alinsky was her mentor. However, I do not believe Saul Alinsky originated such tactics. I think he took them from Stalin.
Republicans need to get off their butts and get a bit dirty, though not illegal. They should be willing to get their hands dirty and stop worrying about how they appear.
The recent fight for speakership by McCarthy, who is on the left side of the Republican Party, shows the problems faced within the party. The Freedom Caucus was asking for more democracy and less Pelosi dictatorship. They want all members of Congress to have their say. I posted this before, but if you are interested and haven’t seen it, here it is again.
https://spectator.org/freedom-caucus-demands-are-not-unreasonable/
The Demands of the Freedom Caucus Are Not Unreasonable – The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Allan / S Meyer’s daily insults, example #1009.
let me quote another Anonymous the Stupid quote.
“No one deletes their own comments on this blog.”
We have learned how untrue that statement is.
S. Meyer says, “When the right demands elementary school libraries remove books regarding all genres of sex, he complains there is a restriction on freedom of speech.”
It is a restriction of freedom of speech.
Republicans are for banning books they don’t like. It’s literally anti-free speech.
“Republicans are for banning books they don’t like. It’s literally anti-free speech.”
What Republican leaders want books banned? Tell us the name of the books and where they wanted them banned.
School libraries have a limited capacity, so there is no space for many desirable books. If one desires an additional book, one can purchase them from Amazon and elsewhere. You lack understanding of the difference between a choice and a ban. That is part of your intellectual disability.
You should also know that the left has actively attempted to ban conservative authors.
You continue down the road of ignorance.
Republicans are for banning inappropriate books in children’s libraries.
Democrats want to sexualize the children they didn’t murder before they were born, degenerates, the lot of them.
Not allowing pedophiles to curate your 2nd grader’s library is not a restriction of free speech, it is a restriction on child abuse, you degenerate F.
Good post Neil. I wouldn’t let Svelaz near any schools or children.
Svelaz, if a Nazi writes a book that says trans women aren’t women the ACLU will argue to have the book banned. The ACLU argued to ban a well researched book by a respectable LIBERAL, Shire, I believe. The ACLU argued for Target to ban the book. Stop lying you moronic troll.
No, it didn’t.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/artistic-expression/banned-books
Hullbobby, it’s a good thing lying is protected speech. You did a lot of it.
Republicans are also against free speech. They have engaged in banning books they don’t like. Squelching any attempts at discussing issues like CRT in schools, or even anything related to gender identity.d
What you call censorship is nothing but defining classroom/library material for age appropriate children. That is not censorship.
iowan2: good response.
To Iowan2 and Lin,
I would add, common sense and decency.
Two things not associated with wokeism.
Iowan2, it’s a distinction without a difference. Banning books and preventing others from reading them is censorship. It’s censorship under the pretext of “protecting children”. Books are being banned from high school libraries. It’s still censorship.
Svelaz: (1) Please explain how you feel about national Movie Ratings “R” and “N-17” and how this differs from “the pretext of ‘protecting children'”
(1) Please explain how you feel about prohibitions against minors under a certain age from purchasing cigarettes or smoking marijuana, and how this differs from “the pretext of ‘protecting children'”
(1) Please explain how you feel about prohibitions against minors consuming alcoholic beverages or being admitted to bars/taverns/public entities serving alcohol, and how this differs from “the pretext of ‘protecting children'”
(1) Please explain how you feel about prohibitions against minors driving vehicles and how this differs from “the pretext of ‘protecting children'”
Thanks
thankfully you did not ask about castrating little boys, detopping little girls and grooming them
Just because the government can’t ban hate speech, it does not follow that private media can’t ban hate speech.
If you are a private media company with a license (say, FCC) to operate, and you participate in a discriminatory manner, you should lose your right (license) to operate.
This post-obamma farce where government funnels money (and will) into “private businesses” and NGOs (sic) and colleges to avoid Constitutional protections is clearly discriminatory action by those private businesses and NGOs and also government censorship via proxy. That is clear as day. The racist obamma/holder/jarrett regime changed the game and here we are, debating if it’s OK to censor some Americans while being force-fed racist lies in schools and the media – sickening.
First of all, none of the companies we are talking about need any kind of license. The first amendment is their license. But even licensed broadcasters are entitled to choose which views to express and which not to; the days of the “equal time” requirement are long gone and never coming back.
salamander: Private media only ban “hate speech” under pressure from the government. That’s illegal censorship by proxy. Nice try, but no cigar.
salamander,
That questions then becomes, should they censor? But then, that is not at all the topic of our hosts post.
my question is why liberal protestors are ALLOWED to physical intimidate or attack people.
You want to protest… fine…go to a park and stand there and protest.
GOING TO someone house or business…to INTIMIDATE and Harrass…is a CRIME! If a person in a house or business can hear you …you are COMMITTING A CRIME
“ GOING TO someone house or business…to INTIMIDATE and Harrass…is a CRIME! If a person in a house or business can hear you …you are COMMITTING A CRIME.
To deliberately harass and intimidate it is a crime. To protest peacefully from a public sidewalk is not. Protesting in front of a business from a public sidewalk is protected under the 1st amendment.
The left, however, protests violently leaving destruction and death. We saw how the left protected the violence seen in the summer riots. They called arson, robbery, murder and destruction peaceful protest.
Once the 1964 Civil Rights Act established the precedent for those groups of people deserving “special protection”, it’s been downhill ever since.
The evil of slavery was rightly defeated. The right for women to vote was another equality move. The evil of the Jim Crow era however led to a new era of separate but equal legal protections. By explicitly carving out classes of people for protection from discrimination, it implicitly establishes groups of people unprotected from discrimination.
For the first couple of hundred years after our founding, it was accepted by laypeople throughout America that everyone had the right to express hateful views of people unlike themselves based on their race, religion, or national origin. The suppression of speech was not a component of civil rights. Hate speech was even viewed as a Constitutional right by the now-anti-free speech American Civil Liberties Union. Fast forwarding to today, it has become clear that laws banning hate speech are bound to degenerate into tyranny as government employees take on the task of defining and enforcing them.
Hate speech is a target of the anti-free-speech crowd because everybody hates it. It is an easy target, and it helps get people thinking that we need limits on free speech. The next step is to ban hurtful speech, which isn’t quite hate speech, but it is another attractive target. And on and on. This is why even hate speech must be protected, because once we start imposing limits, the protection of speech will soon be gone. And I might note that the Constitution does not say, “…except hate speech.”
Two questions,,
1) Should politicians (government) in their official roles be calling for censorship? I am no constitutional scholar but that seems like a violation of the 1st Amendment.
2) Who should be the arbiter of “hateful” speech? The courts as it is now?
Econ – (1) No, politicians should never call for censorship because when they do, they violate their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.
(2) This question should never have to be resolved since there should never be a ban on “hate speech.” Such a ban would violate the First Amendment.
Calling for unconstitutional and illegal action does not violate their oath. Taking such action would.
It is not a violation of the first amendment for them to call for anything they like. On the contrary, the first amendment protects their right to express their opinion, however ignorant and bigoted it is. It would violate the first amendment if they were to act, in their official capacity, as they advocate.
“Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
Dictionary.com, Wikipedia (which frequently references the ‘alt-right’) and many others are positively rife with this sort of propaganda these days. They are well aware most people utilize their tools rather than pulling out a book.
I do not know how we fix any of this but to keep doing what we are doing. Thank you for the piece, Professor.
Hate is an under-rated virtue and it’s a great motivator. I hate pedophiles, those who prey on the old and helpless, globalists and most importantly those who would increase their power by denying me my God-given rights. I wish them nothing but catastrophe, total destruction and departing the planet with extreme prejudice. Even Jesus whipped the money lenders out of the temple. I’m betting love in his heart for them was on hold.
What’s the other rational response to these reprobates?
Even Jesus whipped the money lenders out of the temple.
And what is often overlooked by people who see only a meek-and-mild Jesus, is his description in Revelation, which pertains to his return in judgment of the earth: His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
Revelation is Old Testament.
The reason for Jesus was a resetting. A new beginning, The New Testament
iowan2: Not so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
I stand corrected
Hate speech is certainly protected by the 1st amendment. However not all hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment. Hateful expression can fall within certain narrow categories that are not protected. Incitement, speech that threatens serious bodily harm, Speech that causes immediate breach of the peace, for example fighting words. A public employer can discipline a public employee, like a police officer or firefighter, who hurls a racist invective at a citizen while on duty.
Turley’s use of Rushdie as an example is odd since his criticism of islam is not hate speech. It’s offensive, not hateful. It would be like saying Jesus was gay or Jesus was a liberal, or saying Christians engage in ritual cannibalism when they take communion. Blasphemous speech is also protected speech, but it’s not hateful.
When it comes to social media it’s a different story. Social media companies CAN limit, punish, or censor any speech they deem hateful or offensive. A private company can fire or punish you for expressing what they would deem hate speech. The 1st amendment does not protect you from private companies or organization who choose to punish or censor if their policies allow it.
Hate speech is very difficult to define because it has an eye-of-the-beholder quality that changes according to who is defining it. Turley is mostly right, that hate speech is indeed protected speech, but it’s not an absolute. Hate speech can easily escalate to unprotected speech when it leads to incitement or serious bodily harm. There’s a fine line that separates protected from unprotected speech and many seek to blur that line while others go the very edge to provoke censorship or punishment.
Turley’s use of Rushdie as an example is odd since his criticism of islam is not hate speech. It’s offensive, not hateful. It would be like saying Jesus was gay or Jesus was a liberal, or saying Christians engage in ritual cannibalism when they take communion. Blasphemous speech is also protected speech, but it’s not hateful.
You only repeated what Turley stated. You just changed the wording.
Iown2, no. Turley categorized Rushdie’s criticism of islam as a “type of hate speech” rather than what it really is. Just criticism. Blasphemy is NOT hate speech. It’s speech deemed highly offensive to the religious. I don’t hate Christianity, but I do hold critical views that are deemed blasphemous. That is not hate speech. However some Christians would certainly call it hate speech from their point of view. Just like many republicans or conservatives conflate criticism with censorship.
Iown2, no. Turley categorized Rushdie’s criticism of islam as a “type of hate speech” rather than what it really is.
Turley did not categorize Rusdie’s criticism of islam as a “type of hate speech”
Turley is pointed out others accuse Rushdie of such behavior, attempting to use hate speech as moral cover. Made possible be far too many Americans ceding their constitutional rights to appear woke.
I urge others to scroll up to the post and see how Svelaz is forced to lie, to push the leftist narrative.
Iowan2,
As I have stated many times in the past, I just scroll past Svelaz’s posts as they are not worth reading.
However, seeing your response to his, I went back and read his.
Yes, you are correct. He lies to push the Leftists narrative.
Great response.
My hat off to you, good sir.
And, again, the reason not to read anything Svelaz comments on.
Just scroll past.
Upstate, won’t debate him, I do point out his lies and deflection.
Iowan2 says.
“Turley did not categorize Rusdie’s criticism of islam as a “type of hate speech”
Yes he did. From his column,
“Rushdie has fought limitations on speech and was himself accused of a type of hate speech toward Islam.”
Do you realize how stupid your response is? Turley said that Rushdie has been accused by OTHERS, “…and was himself accused of a type of hate speech toward Islam.” That is not the same as Turley “categorizing Rushdie’s criticism of islam as a “type of hate speech”
“Turley is mostly right, that hate speech is indeed protected speech, but it’s not an absolute.”
************************
I’m sure he appreciates your unlettered. misinformed, pedantic view of the law. You not being a lawyer and all.
Mespo, the Supreme Court has made this point multiple times. Free speech is not absolute. No guaranteed right is. Turley would agree because he has also acknowledged that free speech has it’s limits.
Wrong again, The Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444, held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Thus, unless the speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action…including even speech advocating violence,” is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Thanks, Maj229. I was gonna but why cast more pearls.
Maj229,
You proved my point.
“Thus, unless the speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action…including even speech advocating violence,” is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.”
You cited the limitation. The key word, “unless” should be the big clue.
You cited the limitation. The key word, “unless” should be the big clue.
It is not a “clue”. It is alerting you to the fact that while the speech is hate speech, it can be acted against by the government because it has moved into being lawless.
It is no longer hate speech, it is inciting lawlessness.
Hate speech is absolutely protected by the Constitutioni
Maj229, thank you for your dispassionate and informative comment. Would that more here would follow your example.
The protection of so-called hate speech is arguably the reason we even have 1A. The right to praise puppies and rainbows was not threatened (except maybe cats view saying nice things about dogs as hate speech and cloudy days take umbrage at praise for rainbows). This is just one more example of how the bad guys control people through controlling speech and enlist a lot of well- meaning but mistaken acolytes to support their cause. All criticism is hate speech to these people and once we’re not allowed to criticize or protest, they can do what they want. We’re not allowed to criticize sex change operations on minors and because of that we have an entire generation that is being intentionally destroyed. Between fake hate speech and fake disinformation they have effectively silenced us and they want to continue to do so. In the beginning were the words. He who controls them controls the world.
“ We’re not allowed to criticize sex change operations on minors and because of that we have an entire generation that is being intentionally destroyed.”
You’re allowed to criticize it. Nobody is stopping that. What you are not protected from is being criticized for expressing that view. You are not protected from being ridiculed or mocked for having that view. You are not protected from being insulted or judged by expressing that view. Many cry “censorship” when they are subjected to those responses and that’s a consequence of being able to express those views. The 1st amendment offers no protection from being criticized, from being called a bigot or racist, or anything else. It may be offensive to your sensibilities that others think differently than you but they have just as much a right as you to express it.
Svelaz, as always, ignoring the focus of the post.
Politicians promoting censoring of hate speech
Yet another example of using pedantry to shift the focus and meaning of our hosts, subject.
Iowan2, Turley didn’t just mention politicians. He also mentioned social media companies which are NOT bound by the prohibitions and limitations of the 1st amendment. You don’t know what ‘pedantry’ means.
really? …people GET FIRED from their jobs for criticizing any liberal insanity!
People can get fired from a private company for expressing their views if the company owner doesn’t like it. Nothing prevents a private company or organization from doing that. Not even the constitution.
If a private employer doesn’t like a political bumper sticker on your car they can demand that it be removed, if it’s refused they can fire the employee.