Eugene Volokh:
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.
Good.
In both Europe and Canada even telling the truth about Islam, quoting verses exactly, can be prosecuted as “hate crime.”
In fact, some Bible verses have been called “hate speech,” causing clergy to be prosecuted for “hate speech.”
Good to see unanimity by the High Court on this.
@Nanny G:
agree and depending on where you go in this country ordering a cup of black coffee is radical offensive
It seems the liberal professors are failing to teach the basics of our rights under the constitution, teaching it as a stumbling block to progress, therefore an enemy to their agenda, the evil creeping weed that chokes out the self. With no self they look to an all powerful entity to care for them. Remaining helpless children for a lifetime.
She flipped off President Trump — and got fired from her government contracting job
The incident happened on her own time, when there was nothing that would in any way connect her impulsively raised middle finger to the company she worked for.
First Amendment, anybody? This wouldn’t begin to reach the level of hate speech, which the Supreme Court has apparently decided is just fine.