Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected Under Freedom of Speech

Thank you very much for accepting! I anticipate having to debate this often throughout my debate years, and I want to hone both sides of this. Right now the basis and evidence for the case comes off my team's prop/opp (though I did the majority of the research). First, I agree with user jascha in the comments. With your consent, lets modify the definition of hate speech to speech that insults or offends groups..., instead of threatens, because that is already pretty much not protected. Secondly, to clarify, we are arguing whether or not hate speech SHOULD be protected, because as of now it most certainly is. Thus, the argument "its protected right now" has no bearing on the debate. Now to my plan: Criminalizing hate speech (ie making offenders pay fine, etc.) would be way too impractical for our overworked justice system, hard to prove/disprove, and open to abuse. Thus the plan I will be proposing is to classify hate speech as fighting words under the Fighting Words Doctrine. Specifically, the doctrine, set in US Supreme Court Case Chaplinsky v. The State of New Hampshire ruled that two types of speech were NOT PROTECTED under the first amendment: words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. Thus, the prop would not protect hate speech by classifying them as "words that by their very utterance inflict injury" (which I will prove). So, if someone was using hate speech, and it led to an altercation, they could not claim self-defense. In other words, hate speech would no longer be protected in the court of law. Alternatively, if the Fighting Words Doctrine does not work, Group Libel Laws have also been ruled constitution by the Supreme Court (including a hate speech case Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)), though I will not go into the details unless necessitated by the debate. First Point: Hate Speech Causes Societal and Personal Harm and Violence Even though hate speech is not addressed to individuals, it ends up harming individuals by creating a atmosphere that leads to a multitude of physical and psychological injuries, the injury part of "words that by their very utterance inflict injury" clause in the Fighting Words Doctrine. Here's some studies that prove it (coming straight of my team's prop/opp chart): 1) According to research completed by professors Kitano and Allport, the effects of hate speech include displaced aggression, avoidance, retreat, withdrawal, alcoholism, and suicide. The special report of the Attorney General of California [1988] demonstrates that epithets and harassment "often cause deep emotional scarring and bring feelings of intimidation and fear that pervade every aspect of a victim's life." Source: Center for First Amendment Studies, Craig R. Smith, California State University Long Beach 2) Hate speech is a pervasive problem suffered particularly by ethnic and sexual minorities. It can undermine self esteem, cause isolation, and result in violence. Words can be damaging and the damage can be heightened by emotion and other contextual factors.[2] Unfortunately, hate crimes are the on rise. According to FBI figures released on November 22, 2004, hate crimes rose from 7,462 in 2002 to 7,489 in 2003. Half of these crimes targeted racial groups; 2,548 against Blacks, 830 against whites, 231 against Asians. Religious intolerance was the cause of 1,343 crimes, and of these, 927 targeted Jews. Attacks based on sexual orientation amounted to 1,239 cases. Source: Center for First Amendment Studies, Craig R. Smith, California State University Long Beach To sum up the point, hate speech leads to harming specific individuals even though it is not addressed to them specifically per say. Additionally this appears to leading the rise in hate crimes as well, because it increasing destabilizes not only the victims, but the environment that shields minorities from hate. This is also interesting to note, because incitement to imminent lawless action is also not protected, another way hate speech shouldn't be protected. Point 2: Human Rights vs. Civil Rights. Ok here I go a little macro. Human right are more fundamental than civil rights by their very nature. Thus it would lead to the conclusion that if a human right was in direct violation of a civil right, the civil right would be overruled. Thus, in this point I argue that based off the Human Rights put forth by the United Nations, hate speech should not be protected, because it directly violates human rights. Evidence: 1) The UN"s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes that all people have the right to freedom of expression before stating: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." The United States ratified this covenant. 2) Additionally, Hate Speech can be intrepid to violate some of the human rights put forth in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically it violates articles 3 and 5. Article 3 is that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Hate speech violates the security of a person (as proven in point 1). Article 5 stipulates that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Hate speech is degrading and inhumane treatment of an entire population, and thus is definitely a violation of Article 5. Source: United Nations To sum up, the human rights trump civil rights, and peoples right to be protected from hate speech gets trumps the civil right of hate speech. The government of the United States has no place protecting speech that harms its citizens, even that harm manifests indirectly, nor should it protect speech that flaunts others undeniable human rights.