Currently, the judiciary’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of spee
Currently, the judiciary's interpretation of the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech clause means that 'hate speech' is protected and legal, so long as the speech is not a threat or a specific incitement to violence. In many other Western countries, such as France and the Netherlands, for example, 'hate speech', as defined by the sovereign, is illegal, and the sovereign imprisons or fines those who engage in it. Should the federal judiciary limit the scope of the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech clause, such that 'hate speech', as defined by the federal and/or state sovereigns, would be illegal, with criminal penalties attached? Provide arguments in support of your answer, and you may cite external sources. Note that we are not discussing credible threats or specific incitement which are currently illegal, but 'hate speech' which is currently protected by the 1st Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Click=Order Your Paper Now !