The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees fundamental freedoms including speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
Written by the “Father of the Constitution,” James Maddison and his team of Founding Fathers on Sept. 17, 1787, it now serves as the very heart of American life, culture and government.
To prevent the government from establishing a religious state, blocking religious practices, censoring information or prohibiting peaceful protest and petitioning for change, the freedom of speech and religion have become absolutely ingrained and entrenched into what is considered American freedom.
And the right to expression is a core piece of human rights and a fundamental piece of democratic societies fighting for equal rights.
But the line has been historically blurry.
“Hate speech” is generally protected by the First Amendment as there’s no legal expectations or outlines for what constitutes hateful expression. According to The United States Congress, “hate speech” isn’t a legal category in the United States. So the Government cannot punish someone for expressing hateful views, though harassment, threats or incitement of violence are not protected.
However, this is a threat to the constitutional basis of freedom: an oversight.
The Constitution should only protect the freedom of speech when used right. Restrictions that protect against people being called offensive slurs that attack their religion, opinion, race, size or disability should be put into place so that a divided nation can change.
The Constitution should not protect the hateful and the bigot.
And though the Supreme Court has affirmed on many occasions that outright bans and punishment for hate speech often undermine and misinterpret the First Amendment, there is still a logical base for protecting those vulnerable.
This legal precedent highlights the challenge there has been finding a balance between not wanting to effectively censor an entire country and also needing to protect people from the real harm that rampant hateful words cause.
The argument is that the Constitution is meant to foster a fair society and should not serve as a shield for those who seek to undermine the dignity and well being of others through hateful discourse.
The push for greater accountability for hate speech is rooted in the belief that freedom of expression should not come at the expense of public safety and the fundamental right of every single person here to be able to walk in the street without the fear of being targeted.
As society evolves and the impact of online communication becomes more popular, the conversation about where to draw the line between protected speech and harmful words continues to be a vital part of the world, and a pressing one too. Hate can’t be ignored in any capacity, let alone be ignored any longer as liberty and justice go unenforced, no matter the person.
