Should Hate Speech be Regulated?

Imagine a person talking with a hand holding their tongue, it sounds pretty uncomfortable. Now, image a person having to do that every time talking to their friends, family members, or boyfriend/girlfriend. Holding their tongue would restrict them of what they could say and when they could say it. Believe it or not, this is a topic that has been tossed around from Supreme Court to everyday life. People have different opinions on how it should be regulated or if it should be regulated. It is hate speech. What exactly is hate speech? Hate speech is when a person uses words intentionally to hurt someone else; they can use hateful words based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation (dictionary.com).
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression. (Hoover Institution: Stanford University).

Even though many believe hate speech is designed to put down people, hate speech should not be regulated or restricted because it is virtually impossible to control tensions between people by preventing them from speaking their true opinions, without violating the First Amendment.
Hate speech is a very important topic, especially in the United States. Many do not know the thin line between criticisms and hate speech. One way criticism and hate speech differ is the intention of hate speech, if it was used purposely for “the stirring of hatred and hostility t...

... middle of paper ...

...termining who was right and who was wrong would create the problem because they would have to justify the reason they ruled that way. Justifying the reason the court ruled that way, could cross the line onto the freedoms given to the citizens of the United States.
Restricting what can be said would contradict the first amendment, which says that every citizen is guaranteed freedom of speech. The first amendment will be useless if the government dictates what can be said. For instance, many people were split on which side to support when a Canadian magazine published an article about the increase in Muslims population. During the trials, half of the people felt it was hate speech and the other half felt it was freedom of the press (Liptak). This shows that there is no common ground on the regulation of hate speech and the overlapping of the rights given to citizens