Angelica Antiporda
Tennessee (D)
House Committee on the Judiciary
Franklin High School
Hate Speech
The debate about Hate Speech regulation in the United Sates cannot be ignored any
longer. Hate Speech is used to attack an individual or a group. It is often directed toward
particular race, ethnicity, religion, or even sexual orientation. It is a type of speech that is said to
degrade or intimidate individuals or groups.1 On occasion, it may instigate violence based on
hate, which can often lead to deaths or perhaps even riots. We have to distinct sides; there are
those who oppose regulation of Hate Speech, and those who are determined to pass laws against
use of Hate Speech.
In 1994, the president of Rutgers University, Francis L. Lawrence described blacks as “a
disadvantaged population that doesn’t have that genetic, hereditary background to have a higher
average.”2 His comments were made public and caused many student protests and editorialist to
insist that he resign as Rutgers President. However, can his speech be a statement of prejudice or
of misguided belief? Hate speech or hypothesis? A main question everyone should ask is: what
sort of language constitutes Hate Speech, which should be regulated by the law?
With that particular question comes the debate over linguistics and semantics. What can
be done? The concept of prohibiting use of words and phrases would limit the flexibility of
expression. The idea of restricting the right of free speech goes against the core of an American’s
basic rights as guaranteed in the First Amendment. In this country, hate speech has always been
considered protected under the First Amendment. According to conventional libertarian views of
the First Amendment there are at least four bases for expression having resistance from
1
2
http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/2-limitsoflaw/hatecrime.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_L._Lawrence
government regulation: The search for truth; the promotion of democracy; individual selffulfillment; and the expression of natural or fundamental rights.3 In the past, the Supreme Court
cases have viewed hate speech as a means to express a person’s opinion in any matter—however
controversial.4
For instance, in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case, the
NSPA, which is a Nazi group, wanted to march in the town of Skokie in Illinois. A main
problem was that Skokie is a largely populated Jewish town. In an attempt to stop the march, the
town passed numerous ordnances regarding the permit required for the march, including a
$350,000 permit fee.5 The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in on the behalf of the NSPA
and sued the town for their right to assemble under the first amendment. The Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the NSPA, despite the Nazi link within the parade. The Illinois Supreme Court
denied a stay of the trial court's injunction prohibiting petitioners from marching, walking, or
parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America or otherwise displaying the
swastika, and from distributing pamphlets or displaying materials inciting or promoting hatred
against Jews or persons of any faith, ancestry, or race, and also denied leave for an expedited
appeal.6 It is clear from the Supreme Court’s ruling that the NSPA had the right to assemble and
parade to express their beliefs.
3
Elizabeth F. Defeis, "Freedom of Speech and International Norms: A Response to Hate Speech," 29 Stanford J. of
Intl Law 57 at 62 (1992).
4
http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/2-limitsoflaw/hatecrime.htm
5
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. 4 April 2007
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie>
6
NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). 4 April 2007
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=432&invol=43>
An American lawyer and law professor in Georgetown University Law center, Mari J.
Matsuda once, once wrote that, “we are not sate when these violent words are among us.”7
Again, this sort of reasoning takes us back to the main question asked about what sort of
language can constitute “violent” words and “hate” speech. One could certainly argue, “Context
is everything.” What will happen to all the literature that has words that might be described as a
form of “hate speech” in it? Would law-regulating use of hate speech bring about a surge of
banning classical works such as Huckberry Finn? The answer cannot be answered definitely at
this point, but it will certainly bring about new waves of problems.
Universities have stepped up to prevent forms of Hate Speech within campuses. They
often claim that these codes were set up to prevent discrimination and harassment. However,
perhaps it is also a push for political correctness. In its 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New
Hampshire, the Supreme Court wrote that fighting words are those that incite an immediate
violent response. According to the Court, they “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas,
and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit that may be derived from
them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”8 Certainly, mainly of the
schools’ speech the Supreme Court has out ruled codes because they were too broad or vague.
While other Universities have these vague speech codes, in the University of Tennessee,
there are no current Speech codes that prohibit “hate speech.” In the student handbook it states:
The University of Tennessee considers freedom of inquiry and discussion essential to
educational development and recognizes the right of students to engage in discussion, to
exchange thoughts and opinions, and speak freely on any subject in accord with the guarantees of
“Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story “ Mari J. Matsuda,
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 87 No. 8, Legal Storytelling (Aug., 1989), pp. 2320-2381
8
“Hate Speech and Campus speech codes” by David L. Hudson Jr. 6 April 2007
<http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes>
7
our state and national constitutions.9 It can be noted that the University prides itself for open
debates as a means to exchange information and opinions. It can also be noted that the school
also has technology policies with regard to speech codes. Use of the university's information
technology resources to transmit abusive, threatening, or harassing material, chain letters, spam,
or communications prohibited by state or federal laws is prohibited under this policy. 10 This
particular code certainly protects the rights of others through the use of already established laws
of the state.
As a Democrat from Tennessee, I oppose strict regulation of Speech unless it is deemed
as libelous or as fighting words, despite the fact that Democrats generally push for regulation.
Simply, the ACLU argues that “Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way
of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free
speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied.”11 It is one the
most basic rights that Americans are often proud of. The inability to express freedom through
speech as guaranteed in the bill of rights offends something in the American soul. Salman
Rushdie once mused, “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases
to exist.” Perhaps we as Americans should muse on that as well.
University of Tennessee Handbook. “Freedom of Expression and Speech.”. 7 April 2007
< http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/71714b5a6cd77b2b158011deba90ccd1.pdf>
10
“Other Speech codes” Office of Information Technology: Acceptable Use Policy 06-07. 7 April 2007
<http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/d2dbba72e445ca4ad6144440d2dfdc3c.pdf >
11
“Hate Speech on Campus” (12/31/1994). 8 April 2007
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html>
9
Works Consulted
A Generation of Hate: Bias Crimes and Hate Speech Issues, 1977-2003. 1 April 2007
< http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/LIBRARY/research/topics/hate/hatespeech.htm>
Elizabeth F. Defeis, "Freedom of Speech and International Norms: A Response to Hate Speech,"
29 Stanford J. of Intl Law 57 at 62 (1992).
Hate Crime. 7 April 2007
< http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/2-limitsoflaw/hatecrime.htm>
Hate speech. 7 April 2007. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech>
“Hate Speech on Campus” (12/31/1994). 8 April 2007
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html>
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. 4 April 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skok
ie>
University of Tennessee Handbook. “Freedom of Expression and Speech.”. 7 April 2007
< http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/71714b5a6cd77b2b158011deba90ccd1.pdf>