Freedom of hate speech: The First Amendment, Snyder v Phelps and beyond

<p>This paper assesses the United States position on the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment and questions whether, in light of the harm hate speech causes and the inconsistencies with free speech rationales, the position is justified. The most recent Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue is Snyder v Phelps which this paper utilizes as an exemplar of the state’s aversion to regulating speech on the basis of content. The ultimate thesis of this paper is that while hate speech is a complex issue, especially given the United States constitutional climate, complete lack of regulation leaves an appreciable harm without a remedy. The approach in the United States can no longer be justified in reliance on oft cited free speech rationales. Though international experiences in hate speech regulation have not been without their difficulties, it serves to illustrate the point that regulating some forms of speech on the basis of content does not necessarily result in the “chilling effect” that heavily concerns First Amendment scholars.</p>