Hate Speech and the First Amendment Research Paper

abominate Speech and the First Amendment - Research Paper ExampleThe fall in States First Amendment gives people the right to come up to even if the listener of the conversation does not agree with you or feels that the vernacular is hateful or offensive. The justification also covers even the most offensive and controversial lecturing from any suppression by the giving medication and permits only minimum regulation of the same through limited circumstances. The basis of this is the understanding by the disposal that free exchange of ideas encourages the proper understanding of the masses and prevents falsehoods, and embodies the f spiel that the freedom of expression by an singular without the fear of being punished by the organization promotes liberty for better governance. By allowing the citizens to express themselves and their opinions no matter the disagreements, the First Amendment has helped in the promotion of transparency and social stability in the American indi an lodge (United States and United States autonomous romance, 10).This means that under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected unless it can be proven that the speaker of the assumed hate speech intended to act violently or provoke an straightaway act of violence. The implication of this legal provision in the United States constitution is that a person may be charged with an offence related to hate speech only if the statements uttered by that person constitute a threat or provocation of immediate violence. It also means that even in cases where the speaker of the intended hate speech threatens violence or intended violence, he may only be criminally prosecuted if there is a law that is displace to apply to the situation in an appropriate manner. The United States government though faced with problems in the translation of hate speech has always endeavored to create laws and policies that discourage indecent behav ior as well as creating laws that though do not define hate as crimes or acts. This means that the law tends to stick acts rather than speech as was evident in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) where the US Supreme Court debated about the burning of cross by the radical Ku Klux Klan and whether it was a sign of hate speech (Gerstenfeld 10). The blue-ribbon(prenominal) court in this instance overruled the Minnesota law which it found to be unconstitutional as it go against a youngsters First Amendment free speech rights. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) where a white boy was beaten by black teenagers, the debate about the magnitude of the penalty was ruled by the Supreme Court. It held that an increased penalty did not violate the free speech rights of an accused person and therefore the courts could resurrect the penalty. From the foregoing discussion, it can be said that the United States constitution which defines hate speech as speech t hat maligns a person based on the parameters earlier mentioned receives the protection of the First Amendment. The upshot is that while the government restricts hate speech, it has a clear understanding that the most effective way of combating the vice is through freehanded and effective strategies to counter the hate speech. It therefore deploys an