THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

Should the First Amendment cover racism and hate speech?

By Talia Klein Perez
 Getty Images: David McNew
In America, should the First Amendment, which legally protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly, be interpreted to include racism and hate speech as well? Or, should the First Amendment be understood as protecting Americans’ rights to speak and act, but within boundaries, which leaves racism and hate speech out of its protection?
Let’s examine why the First Amendment should and should not be interpreted to include racism and hate speech.

 

Three reasons why racism and hate speech should be understood as protected by the First Amendment

 

Who draws the line?

If all speech is protected by the First Amendment, then there is less room for government restrictions. On the other hand, if we allow the government to regulate free speech, then we open the door for greater government involvement in every aspect of our lives. This, much like McCarthyism, which sought to eradicate values viewed as a threat to the American way of life, would wind up as a grandiose witch hunt and would likely hurt America in the long-run.

Moreover, a democracy is not measured by its mainstream, law-abiding citizens. A democracy allows people to go out against its modes and norms. When we shut down what we are not comfortable hearing, that’s a dictatorship.

 

Why bother defending something indefensible?

It’s hard to stand up and defend the morally repugnant expressions of racists and haters. It is clear that what they are doing or saying is wrong. But, outlawing the rhetoric does not change the way people think. What is needed is a look beyond the law and take measures, such as raising awareness, launching education programs and changing policy, to root out hate and teach tolerance.

 

Inciting a call to civil war

The First Amendment, as it is understood today, protects people’s right to say what they want, not do what they want. Free speech does not absolve people from responsibility for their actions. Aristotle believed that the law binds men together into a “cohesive and just community.” However, in today’s more libertarian America, the law must be upheld as is to keep minimal order, without inciting more hatred and aggression. It is not unthinkable to assume that banning some voices by law would just make those voices fester in darkness, rather than disappear. Every action has a re-action and excluding extreme voices might push to a bigger clash than the one we are seeing.

 

Three reasons why racism and hate-speech should not be protected by the First Amendment

 

The First Amendment should protect all

The U.S. Constitution aims to shape the American nation and give it character. It is the everlasting and timeless written spirit of the United States. Did the Founding Fathers think that racism should be included in the Constitution? It’s fairly self-evident that the answer is no. The First Amendment is not about speech, it is meant to ensure that those inhabiting America are safe and can express themselves as they see fit. American ethos is that of a melting pot, being multiracial is one of its core features. As such, all members of American society should be protected by the First Amendment – and safe from hate.

 

Words hurt – and infringe on our right to safety

Those who commit criminal acts are tried and sentenced. It goes without saying that those who commit hateful and racist acts or articulate slurs be penalized as well. Hate speech is violent by nature and can cause direct and indirect physical and psychological harm. Professor Lisa Feldman Barrett of Northeastern University took a scientific approach to understanding how hate speech affects the human brain. She explained that “if words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then certain types of speech can be a form of violence.”

Words also create an atmosphere that incite physical harm, as evidenced in the systematic murdering of millions at the hands of the Nazis, made possible, after  propaganda laid the groundwork of hate. Some offensive remarks may seem harmless, but they can snowball into more volatile forms. Once speech reaches an extreme, it becomes too late to avoid its dangerous consequences.

 

A red line must be drawn for hateful speech and conduct

 The purpose of law is not just to regulate bureaucracies but to establish common norms and values. On a dynamic issue such as free speech, where different interpretations have far-reaching implications on character and on the safety of its citizens, the law needs to take a stand. The government needs to draw a red line and take a stand in principle against hatred and intolerance. The “value-neutral state,” a country which does not take a stand, as described by Jeremy Waldron in his influential book, is detrimental. If America is to remain the leader of the free world, tolerance, freedom and respect must be distinguished from hatred, racism and acts of violence.

 

Bottom line: The Constitution and its Amendments is a living document. Our understating and interpretations of it are mirroring our values, and to no lesser extent than the values of the Founding Fathers who wrote it more than 200 years ago. How do you see it? Is the First Amendment there to protect free speech or American citizens? Should it include race and hate speech or not?

SHOW COMMENTS
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing
Politics | The Big Debates