Free speech in America has been very hotly contested as of late, and it seems people are very torn about the 1st Amendment and why we have it. Obviously, we all have the rights to speak our minds, whether it be criticism of the government, opinions on a political party, or just about anything. However, where people become split is when hate speech is considered. Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. There is no exception to what speech can be used unless it immediately presents danger, direct violence, or incites riot (e.g. you can't yell that there's a bomb in the building if there is not). But, hate speech is defended entirely as long as nobody is directly threatened by whom speaks it.
What this means is that nobody is allowed legally to attack someone who is preaching hate speech, whether or not they're a racist, a Klansman, a nazi (ahem), or anything of the type. If you do, you get arrested for physical assault. This seems to be a rather controversial thing, especially when people feel that hate speech threatens a specific group. Retaliation is punished, while the speech is not.
While it is personally my belief that all free speech must be protected, and all legalities regarding how people respond or act upon it should remain, what do you believe is the correct way to approach free speech in America? How should we regard hate speech?
What this means is that nobody is allowed legally to attack someone who is preaching hate speech, whether or not they're a racist, a Klansman, a nazi (ahem), or anything of the type. If you do, you get arrested for physical assault. This seems to be a rather controversial thing, especially when people feel that hate speech threatens a specific group. Retaliation is punished, while the speech is not.
While it is personally my belief that all free speech must be protected, and all legalities regarding how people respond or act upon it should remain, what do you believe is the correct way to approach free speech in America? How should we regard hate speech?