Hate Speech is the Price We Must Pay for Freedom of Speech

Living in the get together States we enjoy many an(prenominal) wonderful libertys and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms reckon innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and delicate work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of bringing is perhaps our most cherished, and sensation of the most controversial. Hate speech is one(a) of the prices we all endure to cover our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.Congress shall make no jurisprudence 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 governing for a redress of grievances.When the framers of the constitution penned these 45 oral communication could they have cognise the extent that they would be studied and scrutin ize? Are the words meant to be taken literally or is it the spirit to them that is most important? many a nonher(prenominal) views exist and atomic number 18 hotly debated, but most agree that this amendment has enabled nigh of the best things in the history of our country to be said and last done. However it has also enabled some of the worst. When discussing hate speech one has to maneuver fighting words. conflict words ar words that the Supreme address believes that even the mere utterance of them will inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. The court also believes these words are unnecessary for anyone to use, and that even if they were not used someone could still indicate their ideas. Historically some hate speeches have contained fighting words, but they are view by the court as a separate entity. Fighting words are often classified as having absolutely no social value, and are not protected by the first amendment. In this regard I think that hate speech and fighting words are very analogous to inauspicious and obscene natural. While indecent material might be frowned upon it is constitutionally protected, as where obscene material (also classified as having no social value) is not. This distinction was first make in the early 1940s in the Chaplinsky case. Chaplinsky was a Jehovah s Witness, and one day while doing some face-to-face confrontations as office staff of his religious practices, an... ...nts think is appropriate. That kind of gathering offers an opportunity for people to scold about something other than the Klan. It also shows the outside world the community does not condone Klan activity.Perhaps in the end all we can real do it to try and come to terms with hate speech on a personal level. I believe 100 percent in the first amendment, and I look at having to tolerate hate speech as a price I have to pay for enjoying such(prenominal) a wonderful freedom. I dont think it would be effective or warranted to lim it the peoples freedom in attempts to try and hinder the despicable practice of hate speech.Works CitedThe Associated Press State & local Wire, January 7, 2002.Fales, John The Washington Times, Pg. 11 September 2, 2002.Fein, Bruce The Washington Times, August 6, 2002.Rodrigues, Janette The Houston Chronicle, Pg. 15 January 17, 2001.Taylor, Lynda Guydon The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pg. w3 June 24, 2001Cases CitedBlack v. Virginia, 262 Va. 764, 553 S.E.2d 738 (2001)Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party 373 N.E. 2d 21 (1978)