or parents who wish to block this kind of material. These filtering tools provide users with a strong weapon, allowing the Internet to remain as free as possible from governmental regulations. III.Hate Speech and The First AmendmentThe First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...” Every American has therefore the right to express his/her opinion even if the statement is offensive. The United States Supreme Court once adopted the concept of “a market place of ideas,” which laissez-faire policy allows good and bad ideas to freely compete. The logic is that harmful speech will ultimately be rejected and that it is better to tolerate a little harm for the sake of greater freedom. Indeed, the same tools used to censor hate speech, for instance could be used to restrict reasonable ones. Hence, it is rare that federal, state, and local government intrude upon this citizen right. In order for them to restrict speech they need to prove a compelling interest in doing so. Thus, they must act under the “strict scrutiny” standard and demonstrate that their goal is compelling and that the approach is narrowly tailored to meet this goal. Hence, the government has relatively few means to impose restrictions on the content of a speech. However, it can easily regulate the time, place and manner in which a speech is delivered, regardless of its content. These elements pertain to context, which concept is hard to apply to the Internet.IV.Limitations of the First Amendment: Unprotected SpeechOffensive speech tends to fall under the First Amendment’s protection, but in some cases the Supreme Court ruled differently. Indeed, the following cases all set precedent also applying to the Internet.In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s witness, distributed literature in the street of Rochester, N.H., when he called some...
