You CAN Hate Me!
A free society isn't a kind one.
One semi-uncomfortable truth about the United States is that hate speech is generally legal.
That’s shocking, right? It feels wrong, it feels dangerous, and it feels like an endorsement of hatred. But legally speaking, the First Amendment protects speech that is offensive, discriminatory, and generally hostile. (As long as it doesn’t cross lines like direct threats and incitements of violence.)
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.
-The 1st Amendment of the Constitution
The First Amendment does not exist to protect day-to-day conversation. It exists to limit the government’s power over speech. It’s why you’re allowed to say you love or hate the government. The authors of the Constitution understood that once a government gains the authority to determine which ideas are okay, that power can be used against anyone.
The Supreme Court has frequently ruled in cases about public speech that, as long as the speech doesn’t incite violence or turn into a threat, it is not punishable
But I’m not writing this post to talk about any current political events, or anything along those lines. I’m writing it to emphasize the idea that words of antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and other things along these lines are legal, and to make the case that we, as a society, too often forget that. They are hateful and bad, but valid according to the Constitution.
People online are allowed to be hateful. They are allowed to say antisemitic things, as Tyler Oliveria said in a recent video, that Orthodox Jews in New Jersey are taking advantage of welfare, and are allowed to say this in any twisted way. I didn’t like the video, and that’s fine. People can say Somali immigrants are committing mass fraud. The President can say that Haitian immigrants were eating pets. Everyone in the country can say Trump was in the Epstein files as much as they want. This is all legal.
And the thing is, you are allowed to hate them for it.
If we say that one group shouldn’t say XYZ, we limit ourselves from being able to say controversial things as well. Even organizations like the ACLU have defended the speech rights of groups whose views they oppose. Not because they agree with those views, but because weakening free speech protections for one group weakens them for everybody.
In 1977, a neo-Nazi group planned to march in a town in Illinois full of Holocaust survivors. This march, as it should be, was deeply condemned, and local officials tried to stop it. But the ACLU stepped in, not because it supported Nazism, but because it protects the group’s right to assemble and its views. This battle reached the Supreme Court, which ruled the Nazis had a constitutional right to march. This decision reinforced the idea that speech cannot be prohibited simply because it is offensive.
I hate this story. I hate Nazis. I do not think they should’ve been allowed to do this. But if I act upon that idea, and try to ban all Nazi protesters from organizing a march, what is stopping them from doing the same thing for me organizing an Anti-Nazi march?
The Constitution asks: Should the government punish this speech? We, the people, answer, no.
But morality asks, should we say it?
These are, and must be, separate conversations. It is legal to hold bigoted beliefs. It is generally legal to express them in most contexts. It is also legal for others to condemn those beliefs, to argue against them, and to push back. And that friction, that clash of ideas, is built into a free society, or at least I believe it is.
On the morality side, just because you can say something does not mean you should. We should all strive to be people who are kind, respectful of others’ beliefs, and thoughtful. But we’re also people who should strive to be opinionated and have personal views.
Many people argue that we (society) are too sensitive, and that every offensive or controversial statement sparks outrage. Others argue that harmful speech causes real social damage, especially to certain communities. Both narratives can exist at once. Words do matter. They shape culture. They influence behavior. And they can wound deeply.
I hope this all makes you uncomfortable. Our culture is one of outrage. We often confuse “This offends me” with “This should be illegal.” That’s a powerful and heavy distinction. The emotional reaction to racist, antisemitic comments is often immediate, full of anger, hurt, and disgust. That reaction is human and makes sense. But feeling that something is deeply, morally wrong does not automatically mean it should be illegal.
Law operates on a different standard than emotion, being:
Emotion: Did this hurt me?
Law: Did this cross a specific constitutional boundary?
The First Amendment sets that boundary high on purpose. It protects speech unless it becomes a direct threat, harassment, or incitement to violence. That means most hateful speech remains protected.
Today’s moral majority is not tomorrow’s, and it is certainly not yesterday’s. Times have indeed changed. The question now is, does free speech mean the same thing now as in the 1700s? After all, bigotry was normal back then. It’s a good question.
The outrage and the offensiveness of a statement are deeply subjective. Any free society requires citizens to separate “This makes me angry,” from “This should be criminal.” That separation is difficult but essential to truly understand free speech.
Free speech has never been about comfort. It has never been about protecting ideas that are deemed “safe.” It has always been about limiting the government’s power to decide which ideas are allowed to exist.
That principle does not become less important because we live in a more sensitive society. If anything, it becomes more important. Just like the government, we can’t let general society control what we say.
You are allowed to be offended. You are allowed to be outraged. You are allowed to argue back fiercely. You are allowed to organize, to protest, to boycott, to condemn. That is free speech too.
The First Amendment does not guarantee a kind society. It guarantees a free one, and what we do with that freedom, whether we use it to divide or persuade, or inflame, or elevate, is up to us, and our own morals.
Are we using it wisely?
-Isaiah
Such an interesting read and it definitely got the grey matter firing. I suppose it goes to the heart of the fact that free speach should not incite violence, in any shape or form, and that's the bottom line. Therefore, if it can be traced back that certain rhetoric stirred up hate, or violence, then, the line is crossed. I am slow to speak more to this as I am not American not am I familiar with the US Constitution apart from the the general dictates publically acknowledged. As you said, two things can be true at the same time -respect of different opinions does not mean that you agree with them. But there's a BIG difference between disagreeing and going "full frontal attack" because you disagree. Thank you for sharing and I really enjoyed the engagement.
Interesting take!