Michael Starke
Committee on the Judiciary
Position Paper on Hate Speech
North Carolina Republican
Hate Speech
Background
The United States of America is a country built upon ideas, one of which is the
freedom of speech. This freedom is guaranteed by the first amendment to the
constitution; however many Americans disagree with this in practice. The term hate
speech refers to speech that is “used to attack an individual or group” (Wang 2). Many
Americans perceive this as a violent act and feel that an abridgment on the first
amendment may be necessary, in order to curb the harm that may result from hate
speech. These people feel that this malicious speech can incite hateful actions and
cause damage to people. However on the other end of the scope, many Americans
such as the ACLU feel that the first amendment right must be protected and that any
form of abridgement would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
Historically, laws have been used to censor speech, such as the Alien and
Sedition laws passed under President John Adams, as well as the Espionage which
was implemented during the period prior to World War I. However following the
enactment of the Espionage Act in 1919, Charles Schneck protested against the war
and was brought before the supreme court. In the Supreme Court case in Schenck v.
United States, the supreme court decided against Charles Schneck and authorized the
restriction of speech when there is a “clear and present danger” Said Chief Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes in his decision, "The question in every case is whether the
words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a
right to prevent."(The OYEZ Project) This means that in time of war there are
restrictions on certain things that can be said in times of peace. Since this case many
more people have challenged the doctrines put in place to prohibit speech, most
recently in the education area. In recent years, more and more the judges have decided
to favor the rights of the individual to speak. This is apparent in cases such as National
Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, R.A.V v. St. Paul, and Doe v.
University of Michigan. In all of these cases, restrictions placed upon the freedom of
speech were struck down for various reasons.
Position
As a proud member of the Republican Party, I find myself staunchly opposed to
the regulation of speech in any way. I believe that hate speech is any form of
expression that is used maliciously to cause harm. However, I feel that it is a first
amendment right to speak as one wishes and it would be an encroachment of the
aforementioned constitutional rights to seek in any way to hinder the speech of the
public. As can be seen in recent court decisions, it is illegal to prohibit the speech of
an individual, unless his speech provokes a hurtful action out of another, or causes
direct harm to someone. If the speech is used to promote riotous or hateful actions
then I believe that it may be put under consideration of the law. I believe that while
Americans are guaranteed freedom, that freedom hinges upon the freedom of other
and if an abuse of freedom is made to hurt another that is when hate speech may be
curbed. I fully support this belief and seek to prevent any infringements of the
constitution.
Works Cited
American Civil Liberties Union. n.d. 9 March 2007.
<http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html>
Constitution of the United States of America. No ed. No date. Cornell Law School. 28
Feb 2007.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendme
ntix>.
Hate Speech. Ed. Ying Wang. Feb 2007. Rutgers University Model Congress. 28
February 2007. <idia.net>.
Schenck v. United States. No ed. No date. The Oyez Project. 9 March 2007.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1918/1918_437>
The OYEZ Project, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), 28 March 2007.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1918/1918_437>