No. I embrace it. Hate speech IS protected by the first Amendment. The second you try to regulate that, you set a precedent to label any speech you don't like as "hate speech". The religious fundamentalists did exactly this when they had control of the culture. They implemented "blasphemy" as a way to prevent sinners from expressing themselves honestly.
What is NOT protected, however is defamation. The focus should NOT be to control speech, but rather to make defamation and harassment suits more commonplace. Targeted harassment will NEVER be "free speech", but "hate speech" is too broad of a precedent to set. Who's standards do we use to determine "hate speech"? Exactly, best to leave it be.
No. I embrace it. Hate speech IS protected by the first Amendment. The second you try to regulate that, you set a precedent to label any speech you don't like as "hate speech". The religious fundamentalists did exactly this when they had control of the culture. They implemented "blasphemy" as a way to prevent sinners from expressing themselves honestly.
What is NOT protected, however is defamation. The focus should NOT be to control speech, but rather to make defamation and harassment suits more commonplace. Targeted harassment will NEVER be "free speech", but "hate speech" is too broad of a precedent to set. Who's standards do we use to determine "hate speech"? Exactly, best to leave it be.
There's no such thing as "hate speech." That's validating the left's idea that simple words can do harm.
Are laws against defamation and libel constitutional?