Related Ideas | Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on. |
Most authors agree that the First Amendment gives the highest
level of protection to political speech. This is justified by
the so-called "political argument" for free speech;
namely, the assumption that democracy requires unrestricted political
debate. This may or may not help those who advocate restrictions
on hate speech.
If hate speech is seen as no more than a worthless emotional outburst,
then it receives no protection as political speech. On the other
hand, to the extent that its opponents stress the political functions
of hate speech, the political argument can be used to protect
it. This involves some advocates of restriction in a difficulty,
because it is exactly the political functions of hate speech that
they wish to underscore. They claim, for example, that hate
speech helps to create and maintain social hierarchies, push people
out of the political process, and devalue their political views.
If someone wishes to advocate restrictions and emphasize
the political functions of hate speech, there are several lines
of argument available. He or she might claim any of the following:
- Hate speech expresses political ideas that are so vile that they should be eliminated from political debate.
- Hate speech supports political ideas in an irrational way, and therefore should be eliminated from the political process so that rational dialogue is possible.
- Hate speech, unlike most political speech, undermines the political process instead of strengthening it by excluding people and their ideas.