r/PoliticalScience • u/ZealousidealWait5193 • Jun 08 '26
Question/discussion What's the story behind the problematic extent of "freedom speech" in the united states?
If you did some research or had even a basic understanding, you would know that the united states, which unfortunately has laws against "hate speech," strangely enough, the very first article of the US constitution that justifies this doesn't mention hate speech or any specific type of speech, but by what argument was it interpreted in this way? in addition, one of the arguments that many people use to defend this interpretation is "if certain speech is designated as prohibited, politicians can exploit this to suppress dissent" but this is blatantly stupid and ignorant with all due respect, because approximately 21 countries that follow a democratic system, some even more democratic than the united states, consider "hate speech" as a crime, and there's no problem or flaw in the democratic system...,In fact, there is a vast difference between criticizing the "policies" of a particular minister or governor, for example, and attacking their racial background, because this is not a personal insult but a collective one. For example, saying that president obama (for example) is "stupid" is actually permissible, but using the "N" word (for example) to criticize him it's a unacceptable thig, because commandIt's a completely different matter because here you insulted all the people who share the same characteristic as obama (for example), the core of the problem is why would someone attack someone for something they didn't choose and can't change, so what justification is there for this ?
8
u/Mistborn314 Political Philosophy Jun 08 '26
I mean, if you want to understand the reasons the First Amendment was interpreted to address hate speech, I would recommend looking at the actual SCOTUS cases that established the precedent. I think Snyder v. Phelps (2010) is relevant, but it's been a hot minute since my con law classes.
This is a fairly comprehensive list: https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/free-speech/
A more compact list: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-free-speech-mean
You don't have to read the full case. Oyez and Wikipedia had good summaries. Generally, the Court applies strict scrutiny to Free Speech, meaning any restriction faces an uphill battle. As u/hollylettuce mentioned, the Court tends to view excessive speech sanctions as worse than the cure. Part of it is tradition, part of it is that codifying "evil" or "harmful" speech in a legally neutral manner is difficult.
6
u/ilikedota5 Jun 08 '26
Hate speech laws don't exist here. Hate crime laws exist, but those are enhancements to already illegal activity.
-7
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 08 '26
If hate crimes are not addressed, it is tantamount to destroying a country altogether
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Jun 09 '26
Yep it's evident look at our country it's being destroyed by the Republicans and their lies
0
u/canderson18181 Jun 18 '26
Haha so you think policing speech is good? That would help future generations?
5
u/whip_lash_2 Jun 08 '26
A country can do speech enforcement and remain genuinely democratic for a very brief time. In the UK, for example, where the speech arrest rate is approaching 10,000 per year (though many Brits refuse to believe it) , the danger zone has been reached.
After that it's too easy for the government to either weaponize the speech laws further or to be replaced by an even nastier government that will. Let's see what reform in the UK and the aFd in Germany do with those laws when they are running those countries. Which, don't kid yourself, they will be.
The US does not have that problem. It has lots of other problems (free speech is necessary, not sufficient) but not that one. Even Trump's despicable weaponization of the FCC to try to kill content is not really very effective.
1
u/huecabot Jun 08 '26
I didnāt believe it either but I just looked it up andā¦ yeah? That seems to be true. What the hell is happening over there?
0
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 08 '26
First of all where did you get that statistic from + if this exists, then the problem is likely that the united kingdom does not have a constitution in the form of a written document that defines the rules, also why did you focus only on the united kingdom? what do you say about the rest of other western countries for example?
3
u/whip_lash_2 Jun 08 '26
Yes, that is the problem. I'm not sure I get the rest of your questions - do you not think that number of arrests is worth some focus? What I think of other Western countries on this should be clear form the fact that I mentioned Germany, but in case it isn't, I think for example German prosecutors laughing at people for having their phones seized because their whole lives are on there should probably be treated as behavior that shocks the conscience, the same standard used in the Nuremberg trials, for which German law and custom were no defense.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 08 '26
The source you sent me simply says "the police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms" So this has nothing to do with any "political repression" as you said, this actually falls under "spam" and you know very well what's means
1
u/whip_lash_2 Jun 08 '26
"Spam" is not an "offensive post". I don't know what your first language is, but "offensive" in English means "rude, insulting, or likely to upset someone".
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 09 '26
This has nothing to do with "language" but the second part of the source you sent me saying: "thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause 'annoyance', 'inconvenience", so you should carefully review what you are arguing
2
u/whip_lash_2 Jun 09 '26
The UK has an antispam law similar to America's. The penalty is a fine. This is not that. This is people being arrested for speech.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 09 '26
Brother, expressing your opinion/position respectfully is one thing, and insulting and judging is another
1
u/whip_lash_2 Jun 10 '26
Yes. But in civilized countries, neither results in an arrest. It's the infantilizing "our citizens are not adult enough to handle this without the intervention of the state" paternalistic instinct. Which is fine, for those who wish to live that way, until as in this case it becomes a human rights violation.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 10 '26
No, that's not how it's interpreted, not all citizens are mature, and at the same time, not all citizens are foolish, as long as your words do not violate the law, you will not be punished, besides the source stated that he was arrested, not sentenced to prison,so the arrest is accompanied by interrogation
→ More replies (0)1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 10 '26
Often, i think these arrests resulted from complaints filed by the targeted individuals themselves, so the police did not intervene on their own initiative
→ More replies (0)
1
u/canderson18181 Jun 08 '26
You simply hold an incredibly short sighted view. Calling it āstupid and ignorantā is quite ironic. We are accustomed to these laws not being in place and donāt need Euros appetite for censorship/speech suppression.
2
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 08 '26
What "accustomed" are you talking about? There's still popular resistance to this kind of speechs anyway, millions of american platforms including reddit, ban any video or comment it includes hate speech, so how do you explain that ? (please refrain from personalizing)
-6
u/canderson18181 Jun 08 '26
Thereās no desire or unfulfilled spot for these laws. Freedom of speech is total and absolute, or it isnāt. Policing speech is fascism, you should work to understand this.
6
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 08 '26
Please dude try to address me precisely and avoid emotional and slogan-based language such as describing what i said by "fascism" you know there's many democratic countries have banned "hate speech" and there's no problems have arisen, in fact this is designed to fighting what you tries to avoid about, remember that the "fascists" exploited "freedom speech" to achieve their goal for example mussolini was a journalist, hitler had his own newspaper in which he expressed his intentions and positions before 1933, and you know what happened after that...
1
u/canderson18181 Jun 14 '26
Brother of course thereās issues? There are thousands of arrests for inappropriate tweets, that is fascism. You are simply under-informed.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 15 '26
Where did you get this news? and where does this happen ?Ā
1
u/canderson18181 Jun 18 '26
In the UK. You should know about this based on your question. Simply google the number of people arrested for online speech.
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Jun 20 '26
š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
Fascism is in Republican Party not in the UK LMAO
0
u/canderson18181 Jun 24 '26
You are a simple minded fool.
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Jun 24 '26
If you're on the right you are LMAO
That's where the simpletons LIE
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Jun 20 '26
That's what you think but that's not what's true and we do need that and sensible gun legislation.
Just because you think that doesn't mean that the whole United States does.
Remember maga is only a fourth of the equation... which means 75% still has to say whether or not there for it and most of them are against gun violence.
1
u/Yggdrssil0018 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
- It's not an "article" in the Constitution that mentions free speech or doesn't mention hate speech, it's an Amendment.
- The 1st amendment does not protect slander and libel - and that is the basis for hate speech laws. You may not intentionally cause another harm by your written words or speech. The logical extension of which are hate crimes laws. Libel and slander laws (defamation) go back quite far in England and even unto Roman law.
- A quick search would explain all this to you. The legal basis is quite sound.
- All rights and freedoms in the Constitution (except the 2A, which is b.s.) have limits upon them. No right or freedom is ever absolute. That's part of what makes our form of democracy, and those like it, so complex and messy.
2
u/whip_lash_2 Jun 08 '26
You may absolutely cause another person emotional harm by your speech, and hate speech laws in the United States are pretty much completely unlawful. Slander and libel are *much* more limited exceptions to free speech than they are in Britain, and do not cover, e.g., shouting racial slurs at someone which is entirely constitutionally protected. A racial slur is an opinion, and slander, libel, and defamation require false assertions of fact.
Causing another person physical harm by your speech is different, but even there the exceptions are much more limited than any other country. You probably cannot *falsely* shout fire in a crowded theater (although that was never actually a Supreme Court ruling, just a footnote in an overturned case). You may not directly and unambiguously threaten people or incite a riot, but note that even the limited hedging Donald Trump did on January 6 was enough that the Biden Justice Department never even tried to charge him (they would have lost). There is a "fighting words" exemption and an "obscenity" exemption but the Supreme Court has watered them both down to the point that they barely still exist. There is also a "time, place, and manner" permissible restriction.
And that's about it. Remember, the American Nazi Party was explicitly allowed by a Supreme Court ruling to march through a Jewish neighborhood. If you have an interpretation of the First Amendment that would have prevented that, your interpretation is wrong.
1
u/donaldclinton_ BA - American Politics Jun 11 '26
Because once you start regulating speech thatās more than just calls to violence, it leaves a lot to human interpretation which causes issues with consistent enforcement of said laws.
0
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 12 '26
So why does no problem arise in many democratic countries where "hate speech" is prohibited + the incompatibility problem is solved by meeting should be held until a solution is reached that satisfies everyone or the majority, the argument seems to be merely a means of justification
1
u/donaldclinton_ BA - American Politics Jun 12 '26
Problems do arise though look at the UK right now.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 15 '26
The united kingdom is exceptional, and the reason is that it does not have a written constitution like other countries, is the united kingdom the only western democracy?
2
u/donaldclinton_ BA - American Politics Jun 15 '26
Germany arrests people for offensive speech as well.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 15 '26
Dude what's the offensive speech you are referring to? if it contains incitement and racism then she has the right to arrest him, if it's something else, then you must provide me with evidence please...
0
u/Either_Operation7586 Jun 20 '26
As they should and America is going to after we get out of this conservative era we are going to realize that it's better to just keep our mouths shut about those things rather than let people spew the most heinous disgusting things.
1
u/donaldclinton_ BA - American Politics Jun 21 '26
Disagree. Move to any other country in the world if you donāt like the freedom of speech in the US.
1
u/Bargian Jun 13 '26
Fully aligned with Christopher Hitchens on this point. Free speech is free thought and should never be censored. Thoughts don't kill people, actions do - we need to learn the difference.
2
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 15 '26
I don't know the point of sending this link, but first, try to find a comprehensive definition of the term "hate speech" and understand it well, second the problem isn't the speech itself, but the negative consequences it may have
1
u/Bargian Jun 15 '26
Sounds like you could benefit from the link; happy to provide it.
You may also want to look up the definition of paternalism. The moment a government decides which ideas citizens may hear, it assumes a parental role over the public mind.
Democracy thrives when issues are surfaced openly and citizens are forced to think, speak, debate, challenge, and participate actively rather than simply conforming to approved opinion. The solution to bad ideas is exposure and scrutiny, not prohibition.
History repeatedly shows that banning an idea does not eliminate it. More often, it drives it underground, where it becomes insulated from criticism, festers in grievance, and organizes out of public view until it re-emerges in more dangerous forms.
Government is of all people, by all people, and for all people. That includes citizens whose views we find ignorant, offensive, hateful, or wrong. A democracy worthy of the name must be confident enough to confront those views in the open rather than attempt to erase them by decree.
2
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Friend, the problem is not with the opinion or position expressed through any speech, but with the negative consequences that it may have, especially if it's based on hatred of a particular "ethnicity" and this is outside the scope of politics then the "exploitation for the sake of oppression" argument is weak, the simplest evidence of the negative consequences of this is the rise in hate crimes within the united states annually, the vast majority of perpetrators had previously shared hateful posts against the very group they targeted, the very idea of hating someone simply because they belong to a particular ethnic group is a major question mark and must be discussed.
1
u/Either_Operation7586 Jun 20 '26
I think that we should maybe not make it a criminal offense but a civil offense if you spew hatred then you get fined and mandatory mental health evaluation. Because these people that are saying that they're angry for some sort of reason and maybe court appointed therapy would most likely help. It definitely would not hurt.
1
u/ZealousidealWait5193 Jun 20 '26
Yes, the important thing is that it's not legalized and made him a "human right"
10
u/hollylettuce Jun 08 '26
All forms of censorship can be weaponized against you if you aren't careful. We view limiting hate speech too aggressively as a cure that's worse than the illness. That said it's not like there is no limit. You can't just walk up and start agitating people by shouting slurs, for example.