The year, 2017, has been known to bring the rise in several movements including the following: Women’s March, STEM March, and most pressing being the Alt-Right movement. The Alternative Right (frequently seen as the Alt-Right) movement has been around for years but it is now starting to be criticized for what it stands for, which is basically maintaining white supremacy in a western civilization. These opinions are usually formed by a group of internet radicals bringing many different ideas, since there is no set structure to what the movement stands for (Collins). Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and white supremacist leader, coined the term in 2008 and advocated for the movement through speeches given nationally. Spencer, along with other white nationalists advocate for ethnic cleansing to take place in the United States to advance the power of white men. Several oppose alt-right views so protests for and against the alt-right movement rose and have become hostile. Recently, Spencer tried to give a speech at Texas A&M University, but later had it cancelled for safety concerns (risk of aforementioned protests). However, recent backlash of anti-protesters also caused violence. Even more recently, Spencer tried to speak at the University of Florida and even if the university opposed, there is a policy that stands for them condoning it to adhere to the First Amendment. The first amendment does all it can to prevent any hate speech, but if we eliminated all forms of it, we would violate free speech. By addressing the limitations of the first amendment and addressing the problem of a middle ground, finding a solution to unrest due to hate will be hard to achieve.
The First Amendment states that “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.” (Constitute Project) In other words, Congress cannot restrict anyone’s words or the right to speak of these words in public. Although, several limitations are in place so freedom of speech does not protect extreme uses of it. For instance, schools can restrict words written in school published papers and can restrict students from speaking about something at a school-sponsored event. (United States Courts) Words can be restricted in a school environment since the students represent the school, but other than that restrictions are not in place for hate speech. The LA Times reports the limits to free speech but also addresses that hate speech is in fact protected by the Constitution as White states, “there is no general 1st Amendment exception allowing the government to punish “hate speech” that denigrates people based on their identity.” The Supreme Court usually handles all cases and can create change in law, but that has not been seen for hate speech as of now. There has been no sign of censorship now, but the protests occurring now could change that.
While hate speech is still protected under our Constitution, several institutions have worked to combat it. When Matt Hale, leader of World of the Creator (white supremacist group), was allowed to speak at the University of Illinois, several members associated with the school tried to prevent it. The University of Illinois let him speak at the school because they wanted to recognize his rights to free speech and allow the school community to speak against it. The University did not approve of his message, but they approved of the students who used their free speech in turn to oppose it. (American Bar Association) The only way hate speech is spread is by persuasion of beliefs and if the university rejected his ability to speak at the school, students could begin siding with the speaker of the hate speech and their ideas just because it was opposed by the school. Views are allowed to be disputed and the Constitution leaves that to keep the nation’s ideas fairly shared if they please to report them.
The United States’ Constitution calls for a system of equality where there is no middle ground for words. People are given the right to debate views in any way but it does not mean that it has to be heard by all. Some public spaces have policies on how someone can give a speech, but there are usually policies in place where a place cannot reject a person from speaking somewhere because of the content of the speech. Over the past few years, we have seen outbreak break out with views that cannot be shared. The recent protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, broke out as a result of Spencer not being allowed to speak at Texas A&M to maintain public safety and prevent conflict. One of the most common issues with preserving peace and words is that unrest always breaks out over little things that become larger. If the Constitution were to limit the views of someone like a white supremacist, it would be morally wrong for someone to speak against white supremacy if nobody can counter the opposition.
In order to prevent less violent outbreaks, not much can be done since restricting ideas can in turn bring more conflict. The First Amendment has been limited in several ways because of cases taken on by the Supreme Court, but they cannot fully eliminate hate speech. If the government wanted to create an end to hate speech and violence, it would be utopia, an impossible idea that makes a perfect society. Even so, too much control within a nation causes more disruption. Therefore, if the United States wanted to put an end to all hate speech, they would only bring more public disruptions than safety. Most attempts at limiting hate speech have not ended in abolishing it. For instance, in the Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Clarence Brandenburg, leader in the Ku Klux Klan (a hate group that usually targeted African Americans), spoke at a rally for the Klan and “was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law” that tried to make hate speech illegal. (Oyez) The Court used the following test to evaluate if the speech was dangerous: “(1) speech can be prohibited if it is ‘directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action.’” The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg in the end because Brandenburg’s speech was protected under the test and Ohio’s syndicalism law made the teaching and advocacy of hate views illegal, which violated the Constitution.
The United States’ system of government has allowed for people to express their views, except for the limitations presented by the Supreme Court. One example of this is Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, ruling that public schools can prohibit the use of offensive language if it is proven to be “inconsistent with the ‘fundamental values of public school education.’” (Oyez) While public schools may be able to restrict words, it is not so easy to restrict outside of school. In our society, if people think there is an issue with something, they protest. These protests can turn violent in a matter of time. There will always be opposition to any decision or idea within the nation, but our country stands for the freedom to express either side. When trying to find a solution for ending hate speech, there is none. Limitations only bring more conflict, so one must advocate for their own views and they will soon spread. The spreading of ideas is dangerous, but the words themselves can bring change if the people of the United States allow it.