Hate Speech Should Be Made Illegal in America

I will use this round to outline why hate speech should not be made illegal in America. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom of Speech In America, our rights are outlined by the Constitution, most famously through the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. As evidenced by the preamble of the Bill of Rights, which stated, “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added (1),” the Bill of Rights is a set of “negative rights,” which means that they are rights that the government cannot infringe upon in order to prevent the government from having too much power. While they initially only applied to federal government, specific amendments, the First Amendment included, have been incorporated for state use through the Fourteenth Amendment. Freedom of speech was incorporated with the Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York, so it is now necessary for states to also consider freedom of speech. Specifically, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. ” As hate speech, by its definition, is speech; the First Amendment prohibits the American government from making hate speech illegal. On top of that, it seems pointless to have freedom of speech in the first place if an exception is made for certain types of speech. Broad Definition The definition, as stated in round one, of hate speech is “any speech which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. ” By this definition, anything that can be deemed offensive to a protected individual or group can be considered hate speech. An environment where offensive speech is forcibly withheld is not a conducive environment for discussion or progress. Inherent Inequality By the definition of hate speech, the rights of certain groups and individuals are protected over the rights of others. For example, if a person were to be punished for hate speech, than that would automatically mean that he or she has less freedom of speech than the protected group or individual that was offended, who supposedly only had politically correct things to say. As a law banning hate speech would inherently make it so certain people have less rights under the law than others, it goes against the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which grants all persons “equal protection of the laws (3),” so it should not be put in place. Illegalizing Hate Speech is an Inadequate Solution Restricting hate speech does not remove the hatred. All it does is make certain ideas or statements seem as though they are immoral. It makes it seem as though a person having a controversial idea should be punished, simply for having that idea and bringing it to the public for discussion. Essentially, making hate speech illegal does not solve the problem; it only puts a façade over the social unrest that causes hate speech in the first place. Action vs. Statement One of the main arguments that people who are for a hate speech ban have is that hate speech can lead to violence. However, there is no thing that a person can say that forces an individual to act out in violence. Regardless of what the speaker says, the victim has the choice whether or not to act out in response. As the Constitution protects every person from punishment for speech, the punishment should fall on the one who performed the illegal actions in response, as there is no spoken word that can take away a person’s choice to demonstrate legal behavior. Moral Imposition When someone is to be punished for hate speech, the courts have the ability to decide what speech is hate speech or not, as the definition is very broad and open for interpretation, and that means that the courts are imposing their own moral values onto the people. The courts are, in effect, saying that certain words are morally reprehensible by punishing people for hate speech. Why should the small groups of people (the courts) get to decide what is morally correct and incorrect for the people? --------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to close this round with a quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins(4). ” I look forward to my opponent’s response. Sources: . http://www.archives.gov... . http://www.ourcivilisation.com... . http://www.ourdocuments.gov... “On Freedom of Speech and the Press”, Pennsylvania Gazette, 17 November 1737