Introduction First Amendment of Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

e exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution says that we have the right to freedom of speech. And yet, we often hear argument about hate speech. People ask Should we stop hate speech? Wouldnt it be best for society? Isnt it only conveying bad ideas to people? Well, what is hate speech? Us Legal Dictionary Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women. Simply, hate speech is a form of expression that is offensive. People are spreading offensive ideas. So, if is offensive, we shouldnt have the freedom to say it, right? No. Nowhere in our constitution did it say that people cant say anything offensive. It only says that the government will not abridge the freedom of speech. The government will not stop the flow of ideas. Not any idea, no matter if the general public agrees with it or not. Evelyn Hall Bibliographer summarized free speech advocate Voltaires words on negative speech as: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I ask you: how could we do anything less than that and call ourselves a free society?

Point 2 There have been several Supreme Court cases that involve hate speech demonstrations that make people want to censor because of their particularly offensive nature. However, there was no basis to deny the demonstrations other than it is offensive. In 1978, the National Socialist Party of America decided to march in German Nazi like uniforms complete with swastikas in promotion of the ideas of white supremacy. This march was to take place in Skokie, Illinois, which had a large population of holocaust survivors. The marchers claimed that it would be 30-50 people, without speeches or handouts of literature. They would carry signs such as White Free Speech and Free Speech for White America on the sidewalk. Skokie denied a permit for the march on the basis of 3 ordinances of Skokie. To get a permit must one have an officials approval that the assembly will not portray criminality, depravity or lack of virtue, or incite violence, hatred, abuse or hostility toward a person or group of persons by reason of reference to religion, racial, ethic, national or regional affiliation. o The march was not deemed incitement of violence. The marchers were going to be peaceful and fighting words did not apply because people could choose to avoid the march. Also, it was ruled unconstitutional because of the need of an officials approval. This allowed censorship by the officials. The permit could not be denied on this basis. The dissemination of any materials within the Village of Skokie which promotes and incites hatred against persons by reason of their race, national origin, or religion, and is intended to do so.

o Skokie claimed that swastikas were promoting hatred against religion. The Supreme Court ruled that the swastika symbols were a form of expression. No public demonstrations by members of political parties while wearing military-style uniforms. o Unconstitutional, violated freedom of expression While people dont like the ideas this was promoting, this is free speech. They have the freedom to say it, if they follow the same laws that every other assembly has to abide by.

In 2011, this was brought up again with the Snyder vs Phelps case. The Westboro Baptist Church pocketed near Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyders funeral. The protesters informed the local authorities of their intent to protest and followed police instructions for the demonstration. They stood on public property next to a public street about 1,000ft from the church with signs that said things like Thank God for 9/11, Thank God for IEDs, God hates Fags, Priests Rape Boys, and God Hates You. None of the picketers ever went of the church property or the cemetery. There was also no violence or profanity. In the Supreme Court case the Synders family sued the Westboro Baptist church for emotional injury. The decision of the Supreme Court was that no emotional distress caused by the act of picketing. The message is what cause emotional distress. Since the signs were primarily focused on public concerns the message is protected by free speech. If the message had been different there would have been no problem. Because of this, there was no basis to sue. Chief Justice Roberts Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and as it did here inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by

punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. Anyone has the freedom to convey an idea, even if it is offensive or hurtful to another.

Sources "Bill of Rights Transcript Text." Bill of Rights Transcript Text. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>. Bull, Benjamin. "So What's Wrong With Hate Speech Laws?" Townhall.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://townhall.com/columnists/benjaminbull/2013/01/18/so-whats-wrongwith-hate-speech-laws-n1491748/page/full/>. Chapman, Bill. "Is That A Fact? - Voltaire Wrote, ...." Bill Chapman's Classroom Tools. N.p., 23 May 2005. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm>. "Colin v Smith (1978)(7th Circuit)." Colin v Smith (1978)(7th Circuit). N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/colinvsmith.html>. "First Amendment Schools: Resources - Handout 1A." First Amendment Schools. First Amendment Center, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/handout1a.aspx?id=14083>. "Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition." Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/>. "Snyder v Phelps (2011)." Snyder v Phelps (2011). N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/SnydervPhelps.html>. Vogue, Ariane De. "Supreme Court OKs Protests at Military Funerals." ABC News. ABC News Network, 02 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-westboro-protestsmilitary-funerals/story?id=13037219>.