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

Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful libertys and liberties. compensate though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most gain been gain though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of savoir-faire is perhaps our most cherished, and unmatched of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all halture to ensure our speech stays free. But with nauseate 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. coitus shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free usage thereof or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press or the right of the multitude peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.When the framers of the constitution penned these 45 words could they have known the extent that they would be studied and scrutinise? Are the words meant to be taken literal ly or is it the nip to them that is most important? Many views exist and ar hotly debated, just now most agree that this amendment has enabled virtually of the best things in the history of our rustic to be said and ultimately wear offe. However it has also enabled some of the worst. When discussing loathe speech one has to address fighting words. Fighting words are words that the Supreme Court relys that even the mere utterance of them get out inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. The judicature also believes these words are unnecessary for anyone to use, and that even if they were not use someone could still express 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 classify as having absolutely no hearty value, and are not protected by the first amendment. In this regard I think that hate speech and fighting words are very analogous to uncomely and obscene material. 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 made 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 part of his religious practices, an... ...nts think is appropriate. That kind of collect offers an opportunity for people to talk about something other than the Klan. It also shows the impertinent world the community does not condone Klan activity.Perhaps in the end all we can really do it to try and come to legal injury 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 a wonderful freedom. I dont think it would be effective or warranted to limit the peoples freedom in attempts to try and stop the despicable pract ice of hate speech. whole kit CitedThe Associated Press State & Local Wire, January 7, 2002.Fales, John The Washington Times, Pg. 11 family 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. case Socialist Party 373 N.E. 2d 21 (1978)