Hate Speech Under the First Amendment under Amendment Law
Hate Speech Under the First Amendment
1. Overview: Hate Speech and the First Amendment
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, prohibiting Congress from making laws abridging this right.
Hate speech is speech that attacks or disparages a person or group based on race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
The question: Does the First Amendment protect hate speech?
Short Answer:
Generally, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, unless it falls into certain narrow exceptions (like incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, or fighting words).
2. Why is Hate Speech Protected?
The First Amendment emphasizes content neutrality — the government cannot suppress speech just because it disagrees with the ideas expressed.
The Supreme Court has held that the solution to hateful ideas is more speech, not enforced silence.
However, certain types of speech—those causing imminent harm or violence—are not protected.
3. Key Supreme Court Cases on Hate Speech
A. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Summary:
Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under an Ohio law for advocating violence during a rally.
The law criminalized speech advocating violence as a means of political reform.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court overturned Brandenburg’s conviction.
Established the “imminent lawless action” test.
Speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.
Significance:
Mere advocacy of violence or hate speech is protected unless it is intended and likely to incite immediate illegal activity.
This case provides strong protection to hate speech, limiting government regulation.
B. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
Summary:
A teenager was charged under a St. Paul ordinance banning cross burning and other symbols known to arouse anger based on race, religion, or gender.
The ordinance prohibited speech on specific topics.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional.
Held that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive or hateful.
The ordinance was content-based discrimination, prohibited under the First Amendment.
Significance:
Reinforces that the government cannot target speech based on disagreement with its content.
Hate speech, even highly offensive, cannot be banned solely due to its hateful nature.
C. Virginia v. Black (2003)
Summary:
Virginia law prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate.
Black was convicted for cross burning at a political rally.
Court’s Decision:
The Court upheld that cross burning with the intent to intimidate can be banned.
However, the law was unconstitutional to the extent it treated any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate.
Speech intended to intimidate (true threats) is not protected.
Significance:
Distinguishes between hate speech that is protected and “true threats” or intimidation that can be regulated.
Hate speech becomes punishable when it crosses into intimidation.
D. Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
Summary:
Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of a Marine with signs containing highly offensive messages about LGBTQ+ individuals.
Snyder sued for emotional distress.
Court’s Decision:
The Court ruled 8-1 that the speech was protected.
Public speech on matters of public concern—even if offensive or hateful—is protected.
Emphasized the importance of free speech in public debate.
Significance:
Protects even deeply offensive and hurtful hate speech if it concerns public matters.
Limits civil damages for emotional distress from speech on public issues.
E. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Summary:
Chaplinsky called a city marshal a “God-damned racketeer” and “damned fascist” in public.
He was convicted under a state law banning “fighting words.”
Court’s Decision:
The Court upheld the conviction.
Introduced the “fighting words” doctrine: Words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace are not protected.
Significance:
Established an important exception to hate speech protection.
However, courts have narrowed this category over time.
4. Summary of the Legal Landscape
| Category | Protected? | Example / Case |
|---|---|---|
| Pure hate speech | Yes | R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Snyder v. Phelps |
| Incitement to violence | No, if imminent & likely | Brandenburg v. Ohio |
| True threats | No | Virginia v. Black |
| Fighting words | No | Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire |
5. Conclusion
The First Amendment broadly protects hate speech because of the principle of free expression.
The government’s ability to restrict speech is limited to narrow categories:
Speech inciting imminent lawless action.
True threats of violence or intimidation.
Fighting words causing immediate violence.
Courts maintain a high bar for restricting speech to protect the marketplace of ideas, even if some speech is hateful or offensive.
RELATED Blog
0 comments