Ep. 212: Should the First Amendment protect hate speech?

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

内容由So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast提供。所有播客内容（包括剧集、图形和播客描述）均由 So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品，您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal。

9M ago 1:06:59

MP3•单集首页

In America, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.

But should it be?

Today’s guest is out with a new book, “Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against First Amendment Protection.”

W. Wat Hopkins is emeritus professor of communication at Virginia Tech, where he taught communication law and cyberspace law.

Transcript of Interview: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-should-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction 5:34 Why write about hate speech?8:50 Has the Supreme Court ruled on hate speech? 13:56 What speech falls outside First Amendment protection? 16:44 The history of the First Amendment 20:00 Fighting words and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 24:00 How does the Supreme Court determine what speech is protected? 35:24 Defining hate speech 38:54 Debating the value of hate speech 44:02 Defining hate speech (again) 50:30 Abuses of hate speech codes 1:00:10 Skokie 1:02:39 Current Supreme Court and hate speech 1:06:00 Outro

Show Notes Scotland’s “Hate Crime and Public Order Act” Matal v. Tam (2017) Snyder v. Phelps (2011) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) United States v. Stevens (2010) Virginia v. Black (2003) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) “HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship” by Nadine Strossen