(REVISED) Hate speech and the First Amendment
At first glance, such a question may seem rather simple, however, such a claim could not be further from the truth. Rather than a simple ‘yes or no,’ past cases arguing such a claim and the amendment itself must be looked at to be able to state an opinion formally. First, the First Amendment must be understood; only then can an opinion be stated.
The United States Constitution’s First Amendment is formally written as(only part of Amendment quoted): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” In short, Congress must not make a law limiting everyone’s right to freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the Government for the correction of an injustice. Thus, as long as speech/protest is calm, no matter how grave the protest may be, the speakers are protected under the First Amendment.
As long as the First Amendment has existed in the United States, several cases have been fought and resolved in the name of the First Amendment, leading to further advancement of how the amendment is interpreted in a court of law; such a case was Jamison vs. Texas. Jamison was charged with distributing religious bills advocating Jehovah's Witnesses, allegedly violating local Dallas, Texas law. This was due to how the case was argued. Jamison’s attorney argued in Lovell vs. City of Griffin that a similar matter had been fought, deciding in the distributor's or the ‘Jamison’s’ favor(extremely simplified). Thus, it was decided by a common-law Supreme Court jury that the case should end in Jamison’s favor.
Shining a light on the second part of the question: hate speech is defined by Oxford Languages as “Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.” In the past, cases involving the First Amendment and hate speech have been fought, namely Snyder v. Phelps. The congregation of Fred Phelps’ Baptist Church in Maryland had been picketing American soldiers' funerals for the Government's acceptance of homosexuality. In the instance instigating this case, Phelps had organized a picket at Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s(Iran War Hero) funeral by placing homophobic signs outside of the church where his funeral occurred. Snyder’s father had filed a case against Phelps.
What first had to be viewed was whether the picketing was a public or private matter, as “Speech on public issues…is entitled to special protection.”(Connick v. Myers) It was decided that Snyder’s church had spoken to public matters rather than private matters, earning “special protection,” therefore ending in Snyder’s favor. Further, the signs had caused no real harm to Phelps as they did not interfere with funeral processions, and Snyder was exercising his right to free speech.
While this may seem egregious, a vital piece to the answer to the question here can be found in the decision of this case. Based on my assessment, it is clear that speech, no matter what it is or what it advocates, is entirely legal as long as it does not break any other laws (violence, harassment, etc.).
Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
“Amdt1.6 Relationship Between Religion Clauses and Free Speech Clause.” Constitution Annotated, 19 July 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-6/ALDE_00000040/['speech'].
Comments