Name: California AG's Brief Claims "Hate Speech" Is Constitutionally Unprotected
Brand: reason.com
SKU: reason-com-222
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

California AG's Brief Claims "Hate Speech" Is Constitutionally Unprotected

preview

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independentFrom &nbsp;by the California Attorney General's office in , a case dealing with restrictions on personalized license plates (such as exclusions of "racially degrading term[s]"):There are well-defined and narrowly-limited classes of speech, "the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 (1942) (emphasizing that certain types of speech are protected by the First Amendment). Obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, hate speech, and fighting words fall outside the scope of the First Amendment's protections. See Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. at 2303 (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (forbidding registration of "obscene, vulgar, or profane marks does not offend the First Amendment"); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 791 (2011) (listing instances where the First Amendment does not protect speech); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 383, 393 (1992) ("fighting words," defamation, and obscenities fall outside the First Amendment).Actually, nothing in Chief Justice Roberts' separate opinion in Brunetti, or the majority opinions in Brown and R.A.V., says or even suggests that "hate speech" is "outside the scope of the First Amendment's protections." Indeed,&nbsp;R.A.V.&nbsp;holds that selective bans on racist fighting words (as opposed to broader bans on all fighting words, racist or otherwise) are unconstitutional; and Justice Alito's four-Justice opinion in , which Roberts joined and on which the Brunetti decision relied, expressly says:[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 Kennedy's separate four-Justice opinion in Matal agreed with Alito and Roberts that restrictions on allegedly bigoted speech are unconstitutional. There and elsewhere, the Supreme Court has made clear that .The California AG's office is of course entitled to argue to the Supreme Court that it should recognize a new First Amendment exception, though I think the Court has been wise to reject this one. (Of course, if such an exception were recognized, then it means that speech could be outright criminalized, and not just excluded from personalized license plates, which is the question involved in the&nbsp;Ogilvie&nbsp;case.) But I can't see how the office can just assert this claim as if it were indeed supported by the opinions that it cites.

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independentFrom &nbsp;by the California Attorney General's office in , a case dealing with restrictions on personalized license plates (such as exclusions of "racially degrading term[s]"):There are well-defined and narrowly-limited classes of speech, "the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 571-572 (1942) (emphasizing that certain types of speech are protected by the First Amendment). Obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, hate...

public

Eugene Volokh

Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune. Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander (1947–2011), a student at Boston University, as a more-or-less monthly mimeographed publication. In 1970 it was purchased by Robert W. Poole Jr., Manuel S. Klausner, and Tibor R. Machan, who set it on a more regular publishing schedule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)

reason.com

Credible

Speculation

Anecdotal Evidence

Generalization

Stacking the Deck

Appeal to Authority

Straw Man

Slippery Slope

Emotional Appeal

Red Herring

False Dilemma

Illogical

Moral Equivalency

Ad Hominem

Correlation w/o Causation

Semantics

Begging the Question

Faulty Analogy

Non Sequitur

Bandwagon

Dogmatism

Failing Occam's Razor

Biased

Pure Opinion

Hit Piece

Racial Bias

National Bias

Religious Bias

Financial Incentive

Political Agenda

Gender Bias

Misused Image/Video

Study Misinterpreted

Mistake

Misused Term

Science Misrepresented

Factual Error

Satire

Surface Level

Lack of Reliable Sources

Sensational

Not Credible

Investigative

Balanced

Well Sourced

Great Context

sports

entertainment

U.S.

international

business

technology

science

culture

politics

media

health

California AG's Brief Claims "Hate Speech" Is Constitutionally Unprotected

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS