The 1st Amendment and "Hate Speech"

[AWP]

Sorry, kids, the 1st Amendment does protect 'hate speech'

A recently published poll (and yes, I'm aware of a poll's limitations) surprised me in a few ways.

On the other hand, 21% students -- and 30% of self-described liberals -- agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was an “outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed.”

I know a poll is a small segment and conducting it on a college campus narrows those segments even further, but 30% of "self-described liberals" think the 1st Amendment should be changed? I have to wonder how long it will take for that attitude to trickle down to not just other amendments, but with enough votes to actually see changes made. That's a frightening proposition, but hopefully limited by a poll's sample size and location.

The big item that struck me is the concept that the freedom of speech is broader than I realized. The link above breaks down instances where it isn't protected, but I'm realistic enough to know that pushing the envelope on your rights can be a costly endeavor.

Can UC devise a hate-speech policy that's also 1st Amendment friendly?

The Supreme Court long has held that vague speech rules violate the 1st Amendment and deny due process of law. In fact, efforts at defining hate speech by other state universities have been declared unconstitutional on vagueness grounds.

The University of Michigan, for example, adopted a code in the 1980s — later struck down by the Supreme Court — that prohibited "any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status."

The Fraternity in Oklahoma Doesn't Deserve the Protections of Free Speech

Members of a fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were recently filmed chanting that they’d rather see a black student lynched than as a member of their clan. The now viral video of dapper, privileged white men shouting, “There will never be a n***er at SAE, you can hang him from a tree” reminds us of our greatest national shame. The chant has been roundly condemned as abhorrent. But after university president David Boren announced the expulsion of two students leading the chants, prominent legal scholars from the right and left have come to their defense. The university is a public institution, they say, and punishing the students for what they said—no matter how vile—violates the First Amendment’s commitment to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” discourse.

Yes, I edited that one word, I really don't think we want that as a searchable term here.

At any rate, the concept is one I'd never thought about. We sit through hours of consideration for others classes or CBT's and we've all seen various corporate codes of conduct stating we can't say something. Then we have the court of public opinion that will really destroy your life if it doesn't like you (and who doesn't love digital vigilantism), yet you're free to make those statements even as they wreck your life.

Food for thought the next time you're looking at the bedrock of (or arguing about) our Constitution.

 

[Marine0311]

I've got to email my fomer Con Law Professor this one.

Disturbing to say the least.