Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected Under Freedom of Speech

No problem at all! That's exactly why I went to debate.org to test my argument-so I can get someone truly passionate on the issue. (I would appreciate if you don't curse though, remember I am playing the devil's advocate :) Now to answer the main ideas you expressed in your argument. First to your example of the KKK burning a cross. This act was meant as intimidation (and maybe even incitement to imminent lawless action), so it is hate crime, not hate speech. Again, your ability to call someone the "n" word may/may not be protected under the current interpretations of the Constitution as established in the Fighting Words Doctrine, regardless of this debate. You also said a bunch of things about making it illegal and needing 10x the police force, but that suggests you misunderstand my plan (I apologize if I was not clear about the distinction). Fighting Words Doctrine means if your hate speech leads to an altercation, you can not claim self-defense via freedom of speech. If a man whose race/sexual orientation/ethnicity was being insulted by you initiated a fight with you, if you fought you would not be employing self-defense in the eyes of the law, because your actions initiated the confrontation. However it DOES NOT MEAN, as you say, that you can just get thrown in jail for your hateful words. Imagine it like alcohol. We are not saying you can't drink alcohol, but if you run over someone while drunk driving, you aren't absolved from the crime because you were drunk. We are not banning hate speech, just no longer protecting it in the eyes of the court. You are allowed to say whatever racist things you want, but the courts of the US are not going to protect you from the repercussions of those actions. Then you went on to talk about hate speech subjectivity. The times when the Fighting Words Doctrine would be used is if a violent altercation went to court. There it would be in front of a jury, who would decide whether or not the speech actually qualified as hate speech. And you are right, what is and isn't hate speech does change with society (ie, 200 years ago, the "n" word was pretty commonplace and accepted), but laws are made by society (that's one of the reasons we have a jury). In short, a jury will decide what is and isn't hate speech on a case by case basis taking into consideration the overall situation, etc. You opened with a quote that "the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." But as I proved in my first argument, hate speech goes beyond offensive and disagreeable- it inflicts personal and societal psychological and physical harm. Finally, you keep saying that you have the right to insult others based on whatever you please. This proves you have a misconception what Freedom of Speech really is. The fact is, you don' have the right to insult others. You don't have it if the US goes with my proposal, you don't have it in the status quo. Numerous Supreme Court cases have addressed what qualifies as obscene language (the most recent being Miller v. California), but in all of the them calling someone the n-word is not protected. Furthermore, certain degrees of obsceneties when directed at a person are already considered Fighting Words under the current doctrine, not the expanded one I propose. The right we are arguing for is the right to insult groups of people, not individuals. To sum up, my opponent thus far completely ignored my statistics proving that 1) Hate speech EVEN IF NOT DIRECTED AT AN INDIVIDUAL (which at that point would be considered obscenity/threatening), still causes the individuals in the race/gender/sexual orientation pyschological distress which can lead to dangerous and self-harming behaviors, and 2) leads to a society where there is an increase in physical violence against the subjects of hate speech. Speech that harms others is not protected, and so hate speech likewise should not be protected. He has also completely dropped my point about how the human rights of the victims outweigh the civil right of perpetrators. Additionally, I have addressed everything I possibly could (if he makes new arguments in the third round I can't rebut) Finally one last thought. My opponent repeated said he or she does not care about what if others are hurt by their speech. So why should courts of the United States of American care if they are hurt as a direct cause of their speech? Vote Pro. (One final thank you to my opponent. Regardless of how this debate goes, it was an honor debating you, and you have helped me strengthen my case for the future.)