Why are there hate speech laws when the constitution gives everyone Free Speech?

Question

I thought there were no strings attached to free speech. It was pointed out to me in a different question that I have asked, and was told say whatever you want, there are no strings on free speech.

If there are hate speech laws, and you can get in trouble for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, then YES there are limitations on free speech.

Your take?

Answer 1

In real life, governments attempt to regulate our thoughts and attitudes. I don't think that these types of activities were intended by the first amendment.

In theory, I do think that a person should be held responsible when his actions unjustly cause real injury to another person. The case of punishing a person for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a limitation on free speech but for administering justice for real injuries caused.

I don't think that hurting someones feelings should be a punishable offense. But that seems to be the direction that we're going.

Answer 2

There are actually many restrictions on speech---they just can't be all-encompassing, or extremely restrictive.

Examples:
1) Inciting (yelling fire in a crowded theatre, yelling racial slurs to a minority crowd, telling someone you raped his child, etc)
2) Lying (claiming to be a police officer, lying about someone else, printing material that is untrue, perjury)
3) Time and place (you can't get up on a box in the middle of a major highway during rush hour to preach---locales have the option of setting a time and place for speech that is safe and reasonable)
4) Federal employees (most people are unaware of the Hatch act, but many government employees are restricted as to political speech).

There are others, but there are just a few examples of it. Free speech is a general concept America allows---but like everything else in life, it is restricted in reasonable ways.

Answer 3

I believe our Constitutional "freedom of speech" is intended to allow citizens to speak against a tyrannical and oppressive government without fear of retribution. "Free speech" was never intended to allow people to use whatever vulgar, offensive gutter language they chose, just for the sake of 'shock value'. Examples:

* Howard Stern's repulsive use of vulgarity and filth is not what our founding fathers intended;
* Rush Limbaugh's propaganda, distortions, lies, half-truths, barbs, insults and childish name-calling borders on 'hate' speech, which should not be allowed over publicly-owned airwaves;
* George W. Bush's 'rally teams' actually have a manual which tells them how to dispel protesters or anti-war demonstrators when Bush makes public appearances. THAT is a violation of our Constitutional 'right' of freedom of expression. We 'the people' have a right - indeed, an obligation - to speak out about what we believe to be wrong with a reckless and irresponsible governance.

Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, calling people ugly and vulgar names, writing juvenile retorts on YaHoo! are not necessarily the essence of 'free speech' as our founding fathers intended. It is only a contemporary abuse of our Constitutional rights. -RKO- 09/04/07

Answer 4

Freedom of speech never gave anybody the right to scream "Fire" in a crowded theater. You can't lie to people to cheat them out of their money...here, take this medicine, it will cure your cancer, guaranteed! Deposit your life savings in our bank, we will pay you 20 % interest...this car has only 1,000 miles on it. No problem prohibiting that, right? You wouldn't want some bozo cheating your mom out of her life savings. How about a fool with a blow horn whipping up a mob to beat up people like you because you have been poisoning children? Or worse.

Answer 5

"Whether a particular act or message is . entitled to First Amendment protection turns on context as well as content."

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used."

Now you can go search for the U.S. Supreme Court precident established by these Justices and their published opinions.

Answer 6

There are laws that limit what you can say. You also can't slander someone's name.

It's a small price to pay for a greater glory.

Yelling fire, or bomb, is a threat that can cause harm to those trying to flee. You're using the threat of violence and that's a big no no. Many racially motivated hate groups advocate violence against others which is highly illegal and severe punishments are dished out.

Answer 7

Freedoms come with responsibility. Your freedoms end where some one's nose begins. Freedom of speech ends when its intent is to hurt others with malice.

Answer 8

You are correct. In fact the ACLU opposes hate speech laws.

Answer 9

I was wondering over this issue too.

Answer 10

every freedom comes with responsibility.