Should hate speech be included as a right into the Constitution?

You are correct, in some states you can't use profanity against someone if it might "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace". Now thats some shit. Under that definition you could be fined or arrested for calling someone a dummy or doo doo head...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18508

 

Thanks for finding that BradTheSkeptic. I suppose now we could ask two questions.
1. Should "fighting words" be protected (even if there needs to be some modification in the definition of "fighting words.")
2. Is hate speech fighting words?

 

Well, I think that the "fighting words" provision should be eliminated altogether. We can't limit our right to fee speech simply because it might make someone angry. The potential abuse of that provision is enormous... People need to understand that someone might call you an asshole, but that person is entitled to their opinion. I believe the current laws against threats and defamation are fine, but names don't hurt anyone. Same thing with hate speech. People are entitled to their opinions, but they can't threaten or cause financial harm, via false statements, to any group.

 

Is it not a Constitutional right in America? I think all speech should be tolerated, up and until it promotes violence.

 

Well what is the definition of "promoting violence"? You guys don't realize how risky this territory is.

Shouting phrases such as "FIRE!!!".......... "THAT GUY HAS A GUN!!!!"......."LOOK ITS A BOMB!!!!" should not be protected because these are types of phrases signal immediate physical danger to everyone in the vicinity. It calls for fight-or-flight or risk physical harm or death. But making a law that "you can't hurt someone's feelings" is unenforcable or ultimately tyrannical.

"He called me a ****** so I broke his jaw.... Arrest him!!!!" What a ridiculous topic if u ask me.

 

"Let's kill the Jews."

 

Yes, and there should never be any laws limiting speech in any way, shape, or form.

 

Seriously? You want to?

I've had this stockpile of weapons for 45 years now. Ready to go brah.

 

I really don't have any plans this weekend, plus I've never done this genocide thing before. Count me in.:cheers2:

 

What about 'someone should kill the Jews?' What about 'Jews don't deserve life?' It's a very slippery slope. You can't assume the people in power will use these provisions for good. It's easy to classify almost anything as 'promoting violence.' Besides, if someone thinks violence should be done, have they not got the right to say so?

 

When you make hate a crime who would remain on the streets?

 

Read 1984...

If you let the government censor some people, they will eventualy censor you, and anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

 

This falls under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and it is the role of the Supreme Court to clarify exactly how it is to be interpreted and applied.

 

Why not?

 

Free speech is free speech. Since the US Constitution guarantees free speech, all speech is covered. Not all words uttered are full of love, some are bitter and hateful, yet protected.

 

Verbal attacks so not produce mortal wounds, but physical attacks can and often do.

 

fuck snots shibboleth guzzle fuck!!