What is the real difference between hate speech and fighting words? The emotion put into both kinds are the same- anger, hate, frustration. Yet, hate speech is partially protected under the First Amendment and fighting words receive receive absolutely no protection. Would it not make more sense to make both hurtful forms of speech unlawful?
Fighting words remain unlawful because their main purpose is to start a fight and whether or not a fight occurs, the speech is illegal. Hate speech is a form of self-expression but side-effects of hate speech many times include violence also. So even though hate speech is not intended to start a fisticuffs, a little bit of common sense must be employed to realize it is just as dangerous as fighting words.
How does the judicial system draw the line between these two dangerous forms of speech? How is it decided that one form is lawful and one is unlawful? Merely because one form is expression and used to learn and explore. Both forms, due to their similar outcomes, should receive the same amount of protection under the First Amendment. Whether this is full, partial, of none is up to those who decide such things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment