Nope, sorry, Hate Speech is explicitly protected under the First Amendment. I'll try and dig up the SCOTUS case which says so.
From
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
Quote:
Q: Aren't some kinds of communication not protected under the First Amendment, like "fighting words?"
A: The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.
Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate campus speech codes try to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain.
|
http://www.jstor.org/view/0002919x/ap030195/03a00190/3?frame=noframe&userID=c74cbfa6@uky.edu/01cce4405d00501b4e980&dpi=3&config=jstor
Is a good read.
msulr.law.msu.edu/back_issues/2006/2/Sedler.pdf
Another good read.
Hate speech *is* protected under the First Amendment. There are few exceptions as to what *isn't* covered, but the most relevant would be speech that is directly intended to cause direct bodily harm, commonly known as the "fighting words" clause. I doubt this situation would meet the "narrow criteria" of the SCOTUS.
I'm rather busy right now, so I haven't read through the SCOTUS cases and posted the relevant case numbers, but a quick google search for "supreme court protection hate speech" yields a large amount of results, and can point you in the right direction.
So, while I do think their conduct to be in poor taste, I'm not quite so sure that it would violate any Free Speech laws, and thus must err on the side of caution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kang
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for free speech, but not all speech is protected.
There are several examples of speech that is not protected: clear and present danger (yelling fire in a crowded theatre), libel, perjury, etc. There are a number of other examples. In particular, what is called hate speech is often not protected speech. An example would be a KKK rally denigrating an entire race. However, what is considered hate speech is often subjective. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
In most of our opinions, what this church did would be considered hate speech. That is certainly my opinion.
Hate speech is against the law. You aren’t really “free to do so” like you mention. You do not have a “right to protest” if the protest is hate speech. If you conduct hate speech, you have broken the law. Just like breaking any other law, you must deal with the consequences.
I believe this church is appealing based on freedom of speech, but I believe (and hope) the verdict will be upheld. They have broken the law (and they did it in the name of their god), and they must pay the consequences. |