3 ms·
Hate speech is not generally considered protected free speech. And since you're using American standards, it also does not fall under 1st Amendment protections.
by content_sesh 6y ago
Hate speech is not generally considered protected free speech. And since you're using American standards, it also does not fall under 1st Amendment protections.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't kill people, people trampling other people kills people. That seems about the sum total of the argument you just made
- bitcurious 6y agoHate speech is in fact protected speech, with narrow exceptions. > The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[2][3]:702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. > The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- ganoushoreilly 6y agoI don't think that's a fair assessment of their comment. There are clear guidelines and interpretations of the 1st and 2nd amendment. The context I believe they tried to share is that if we go beyond what we have established as free speech (to include your comments)_then we start our way down a slippery slope. Small changes will have big impacts. The same is said for control measures around the 2A. I don't see op's comment as anything beyond that.