Hate Speech

Research from authors have defined hate speech as the use of words as weapons that terrorize, humiliate, degrade, abuse, threaten, and discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or gender. After the efforts and rhetoric of the Nazi regime in World War II, nations like Germany and France began the push for hate speech regulations. Other Western democracies, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, followed suit. The United States, on the other hand, has continued to hold to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which both guarantee freedom of expression. Thus, nearly all efforts to restrict hate speech in the United States, including speech codes on public university campuses, have been disallowed by the U.S. Supreme Court (Doe v. University of Michigan, 1989; UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, 1991).

There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue of regulating hate speech. Supporters of freedom of expression have argued that true freedom of expression is lost if it is regulated, even for issues such as hate speech. Moreover, they argue that free expression is a necessary condition for individuals to feel free to discuss hate speech against minorities. Supporters of free expression claim that restrictions on free speech will be used against the oppressed groups and minorities they are designed to protect. On the other hand, supporters of hate speech regulation argue that hate speech regulation is essential to preserve the dignity of oppressed groups. The debate on hate speech regulation helps exemplify the long-standing tensions that exist between those upholding individual rights and protecting for the collective good of society.

There are many past examples of the expression of hate in the United States, but one of the most well known is the 1977 and 1978 attempts of the National Socialist Party of America to march on public streets in Skokie, Illinois, a community with many survivors of the Holocaust. The ability for the group to have their event was upheld by the state and federal courts on the judgment of the First Amendment.

One of the current controversies surrounding free expression of political activists and demonstrators against the president and elected officials is the use of free speech zones. First used by the Clinton administration and used insistently throughout the George W. Bush administration, the use of these free speech zones—sometimes a mile or two from the sites where the speeches are given by the elected officials—is considered by some to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.