Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom: Why Offensive Expressions Command Constitutional Protection, Andrew P. Napolitano
Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom: Why Offensive Expressions Command Constitutional Protection, Andrew P. Napolitano
Journal of Law and Policy
The First Amendment is not the guardian of taste. Instead, the U.S. Constitution wholeheartedly protects freedom of thought and expression, even if generated and defined by hatred, as long as that expression does not produce immediate lawless violence. Although free speech may lead to tenuous relationships or uncomfortable debates, it must be defended unconditionally. Too many politicians and lawmakers believe that the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment attaches only to those ideas and expressions that they approve of; this is not so. This article argues that the Founders intended the First Amendment's free speech principle as a …
Freedom Of Speech And Equality: Do We Have To Choose?, Nadine Strossen
Freedom Of Speech And Equality: Do We Have To Choose?, Nadine Strossen
Journal of Law and Policy
As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary …