In an era of racial tension, when the nomination of the first woman of color to the office of vice president elicits hate-filled and sexist statements from others on news outlets and social media, one has to wonder where the First Amendment comes into play. While it legally protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly, can it 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.
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. This is why so many people raised their eyebrows in 2017 after the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, when President Trump equated white nationalist Neo-Nazis with left-wing protestors and said there were “very fine people” on both sides and that both sides were to blame for the violence that erupted. In certain circumstances, it is pretty clear that what extremists are doing or saying is wrong. However, outlawing the rhetoric does not change the way people think. A look beyond the law is needed, and measures such as raising awareness and launching education programs and changing policy should be taken 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 people to a bigger clash than the one we are seeing.
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. Let’s look at the Founding Fathers, however questionable their personal lives and decisions were back then regarding racism. Did they think that racism should be included in the Constitution? It’s fairly 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 should 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 incites 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 also 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 on principle against hatred and intolerance. The “value-neutral state,” i.e., 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.
The Bottom Line: Excluding racism and hate speech from the free speech protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution could cause the government to cross a line, and may actually incite more racism and hate. However, the Founding Fathers would have wanted everyone to be protected under this Amendment, and hate speech is threatening to people’s safety. 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?