They were one of the groups demonstrating against a march of the National Socialist Party (Nazis), who called off a Fourth of July march when they failed to get a permit. Adhering to the content neutrality principle, the court ruled that the government could not base rules on the feelings of “the most squeamish among us” and that the wearing of swastikas was “a matter of taste and style.” Members of the Jewish Defense League donned helmets as they arrived in Skokie, north of Chicago on Monday, July 4, 1977.
California (1971), raised the slippery slope argument, contending that restricting the wearing of a swastika would lead to an endless number of restrictions on all sorts of offensive speech. National Socialist Party of America (1978). The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the question of restricting a Nazi rally in Village of Skokie v.
#Hate speech free#
These proponents of the regulation of hate speech suggest a new balance between free speech and social equality.įor example, Mari Matsuda, a law professor at Georgetown University, has advocated creating a legal doctrine defining proscribable hate speech from a basis in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message tends to persecute or is otherwise hateful and degrading. They question the necessity and logic of protecting speech that not only has no social value but is also socially and psychologically damaging to minority groups. Proponents of hate speech regulation usually do so from the perspective of critical race theory, believing that legal decisions are based on preserving the interests of the powerful, and see no value in protecting bias-motivated speech against certain already oppressed groups. Balance between free speech and social equality a concern For example, liberal theorist Nadine Strossen, relying to some degree on John Stuart Mill’s connection between speech and the search for truth, argues that restricting hate speech will mask hatred among groups rather than dissipate it. Traditional scholars see speech as a fundamental tool for self-realization and social growth and believe that the remedy for troublesome speech is more speech, not more government regulation of speech. The traditional liberal position is that speech must be valued as one of the most important elements of a democratic society. Liberal theorists say more speech is the First Amendment remedy for hate speech The scholarly debate concerning the regulation of hate speech flared in the late 1980s, primarily focusing on campus speech codes, pitting those who view regulation of hate speech as a necessary step toward social equality against those who see hate speech regulations as abridgements of the fundamental right of free speech. Debate over hate speech flared over campus speech codes Although the First Amendment still protects much hate speech, there has been substantial debate on the subject in the past two decades among lawmakers, jurists, and legal scholars. The term “hate speech” is generally agreed to mean abusive language specifically attacking a person or persons because of their race, color, religion, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation.
Black, the Supreme Court declined to rule that cross-burning was protected expressive speech under the First Amendment when such an activity was intended to intimidate, reasoning that sometimes it can constitute a "true threat." (Photo of Ku Klux Klansmen and women at a cross lighting in 2005 via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0) The Supreme Court has struck down laws that have restricted offensive speech, such as the wearing of swastikas in Village of Skokie v.