Limits to the Freedom of Speech Fighting Words Words spoken facetoface that are so abusive or threatening they will likely cause imminent fight Do not convey ideas or contribute to marketplace of ideas ID: 528224
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Fighting Words & Hate Speech" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Fighting Words & Hate Speech
Limits to the Freedom of SpeechSlide2
Fighting Words
Words spoken face-to-face
that are so abusive or threatening, they will likely cause imminent fight
Do not convey ideas or contribute to marketplace of ideasValue outweighed by society’s interest in maintaining orderHOWEVER, courts rarely use fighting words doctrine todayEven offensive, provocative speech protected generally protectedSlide3
Offensive speakers & hostile audiences
Also face-to-face speech
Police action may depend on whether audience is friendly or hostile toward speaker
Prior to 1950s, courts used “
clear and present danger test”Examined circumstances to see if clear and present danger existedHarm didn’t have to occur immediately after speechSlide4
Dennis v. united states
(1951)
Defendants
convicted for attempting to organize U.S. Communist Party
Goal to overthrow U.S. gov’tInstead of clear and present danger test, SCOTUS used different balancing test
Balanced right of speaker & harm speaker proposed
When speech advocated VERY serious acts, SCOTUS required less proof of clear and present dangerSlide5
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
SCOTUS began using
incitement test
for cases in which speaker urged audiences to take unlawful action
Allows gov’t to punish advocacy only when it provokes immediate unlawful action from audienceAudience action must be likelyUnlike clear and present danger test, incitement test requires unlawful action to be likely within short period of timeSlide6
Hate speech
Bigoted or racist speech attacking or disparaging
social
or ethnic
group or its membersGeneral examples:KKK RallyWestboro Baptist ChurchNeo-NazisHolocaust DeniersAnti-Islamic GroupsSlide7
Should Hate Speech Be Punished?
Those who support punishment for hate speech argue…
Measures should be taken due to emotional & psychological toll on victims
Hate speech = fighting words
Does not qualify for First Amendment protectionsOthers argue speech codes… Are well-intentioned, but vague & difficult to enforcePut gov’t in censorship business—favoring certain content or viewpoints & disfavoring othersViolate 1st AmendmentSlide8
Colleges & “Safe Spaces”
Several universities have established “
safe spaces
”
Spaces where individuals who feel marginalized come together to communicate experiencesCancel controversial speakersCreate rooms filled with coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, etc. to “recuperate”Punish controversial speech in outdoor areasSlide9
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
SCOTUS confronts issue of whether hateful speech receives First Amendment protection
Westboro
Baptist Church pickets funeral of fallen Marine
Held up signs reading “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “America is Doomed”Father of soldier saw tops of signs as he left funeralFound out content of signs on newsSued Westboro, claiming extreme emotional distress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBA6qlHW8poSlide10
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
SCOTUS sided with Westboro
Baptist Church
Even though speech offensive, it was speech pertaining to public issues
Entitled highest degree of 1st Amendment protectionHowever, SCOTUS upheld hate crimesProvides enhanced sentencing for bias-motivated crimes