vernment or other individuals. Restricting hate speech would take away one of the fundamental values of liberty, the liberty of expressing one’s feelings no matter the degree of disapproval on the other side. Not to mention, hate speech can be counteracted by positive counter speech. Groups that are targeted by hate speech have the ability to attack their aggressors with counter speech. Since the government allows the natural right speech for all parties, the government cannot determine what is legitimate speech. Speech that is acceptable to one group may be unacceptable to another group. Also, “actions speak louder than words.” This means that hate speech promoters are merely expressing their opinions. Therefore, hate speech promoters are only responsible for their own actions in harming others not the actions of others. In the case that violence takes place upon the hate speech promoter, the government must protect the hate speaker’s ability to demonstrate. At the same time violence that comes directly from the hate speaker should result in the punishment of the speaker not for his words, but for his actions. Conclusively, the government or any other organization should not restrict hate speech in order to instill the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.When seeing both sides of the argument, the dividing line comes down to what exactly are hate speech and what part of hate speech needs restriction. The answer is that hate speech can be accurately defined as speech that is not offensive or even degrading, but speech aimed at groups that incites violence towards those groups, or puts those groups in a situation of inferiority, where they may feel threatened and unsafe in their environment. Basically, the only kind of hate speech that the government can restrict is speech that is to the level of harassment, which is already deemed constitutionally unprotected speech. The person who spouts bi...
