3 ms·

What page of your link supports that? I don’t see “hate speech” referenced anywhere in the PDF.

daveguy 9y ago
The relevant passage doesn't specifically say "hate speech. It's the fighting words / treats section. Here is the relevant passage: --- Fighting Words and True Threats So-called “fighting words” also lay beyond the pale of First Amendment protection.19 The “fighting words” doctrine began in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where the Court held that fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.20 In Chaplinsky, the Court upheld a statute which prohibited a person from addressing “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place,” calling “him by any offensive or derisive name,” or making “any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.”21 The state court construed the statute as forbidding only those expressions that “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark [was] addressed.”22 Given the limited scope of application, the Supreme Court held that the statute at issue did not proscribe protected expression.23 --- Most hate speech falls under this category. For instance, advocation of the murder of a large group of people would obviously be unprotected hate speech.
- function_seven 9y ago
  > advocation of the murder of a large group of people would obviously be unprotected hate speech. It really isn’t. Every day there are thousands of people in this country that say something to the effect of, “We should nuke the entire Middle East and turn it into glass”. That is not a crime. You may find that idea repugnant, but it’s not “fighting words”.

The relevant passage doesn't specifically say "hate speech. It's the fighting words / treats section. Here is the relevant passage: --- Fighting Words and True Threats So-called “fighting words” also lay beyond the pale of First Amendment protection.19 The “fighting words” doctrine began in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where the Court held that fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.20 In Chaplinsky, the Court upheld a statute which prohibited a person from addressing “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place,” calling “him by any offensive or derisive name,” or making “any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.”21 The state court construed the statute as forbidding only those expressions that “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark [was] addressed.”22 Given the limited scope of application, the Supreme Court held that the statute at issue did not proscribe protected expression.23 --- Most hate speech falls under this category. For instance, advocation of the murder of a large group of people would obviously be unprotected hate speech.

function_seven 9y ago
> advocation of the murder of a large group of people would obviously be unprotected hate speech. It really isn’t. Every day there are thousands of people in this country that say something to the effect of, “We should nuke the entire Middle East and turn it into glass”. That is not a crime. You may find that idea repugnant, but it’s not “fighting words”.