Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1:48 p.m. ET April 24, 2017<\/p>\n
Howard Dean(Photo: Thomas P. Costello, Asbury Park Press) <\/p>\n
I tell my constitutional law students that there are a couple of statements that indicate that a speaker is a constitutional illiterate who can safely be ignored. One is the claim that the Constitution views black people as the worth of white people (actually, it was all about power in Congress, with slaveowners wanting black people to count 100% toward apportionment so that slaveowners would get more seats in Congress, and abolitionists wanting them not counted at all so that slaveowners would get fewer seats in Congress; the compromise was just that, a compromise). <\/p>\n
The other hallmark of constitutional illiteracy is the claim that the First Amendment doesnt protect hate speech. And by making that claim last week, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate, revealed himself to be a constitutional illiterate. Then, predictably, he doubled down on his ignorance. <\/p>\n
In First Amendment law, the term hate speech is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether its hateful or cheerful.It doesnt matter if its racist, sexistor in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories like true threats, which have to address a specific individual, or incitement, which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action its protected. <\/p>\n
The term hate speech was invented by people who dont like that freedom, and who want to give thecompletely falseimpression that theres a kind of speech that the First Amendment doesnt protect because its hateful.What they mean by hateful, it seems, is really just that its speech they dont agree with.Some even try to argue that since hearing disagreeable ideas is unpleasant, expressing those ideas is somehow an act of violence. <\/p>\n
The suicide of expertise: Glenn Reynolds <\/p>\n
France's dark horse from the far left: David Andelman <\/p>\n
There are two problems with that argument. The first is that its idiotic: Thats never been the law, nor could it be if we give any value to free expression, because theres no idea that somebody doesnt disagree with.The second is that the argument is usually made by people who spend a lot of time expressing disagreeable ideas themselves, without, apparently, the least thought that if their own rules about disagreeable speech held sway, theyd probably be locked up first. (As Twitter wag IowaHawk has offered: I'll let you ban hate speech when you let me define it. Deal?) <\/p>\n
The response to Dean was merciless: First Amendment law expert Eugene Volokh responded, \"No, Gov. Dean, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.If there were, neither the Westboro Baptist Church whose hateful speech the Supreme Court recently held protected nor the many people referring to Trump supporters as Nazis and deplorables would enjoy free speech. <\/p>\n
As Volokh writes, if people want hate speech to be unprotected, theyre calling for a change to the First Amendment, and its a big one. They should not only admit that, they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. And claiming that hate speech is already 'not protected by the First Amendment,'as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice. <\/p>\n
POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media <\/p>\n
Of course adults sneer at Millennials: Christian Schneider <\/p>\n
Dean then doubled down with the constitutional illiterates usual fallback, that you could ban hate speech as fighting words under the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which allows a ban on fighting words.(Journalist Dan Gillmor commented: Disappointing, to say the least, to see Dean digging the hole deeper on his flatly incorrect original statement.) <\/p>\n
But fighting words arent hate speech.Fighting words are direct, person-to-person invitations to a brawl. Expressing political or social views that people dont like isnt the same thing,even if people might react violently to those views. <\/p>\n
And thats good.If, by reacting violently to views they didnt like, people could get the government to censor those views as hate speech or fighting words, then people would have a strong incentive to react violently to views they dont like. Giving the angry and violent the ability to shut down other peoples speech (the term we use for this in constitutional law, Gov. Dean, is hecklers veto) is a bad thing, which would leave us with a society marked by a lot more violence, a lot more censorship, and a lot less speech. <\/p>\n
Is that really what you want?Because thats what wed get, if we followed the advice of constitutional illiterates. <\/p>\n
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, aUniversity of Tennesseelaw professor and the author ofThe New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY'sBoard of Contributors. <\/p>\n
You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines. <\/p>\n
Read or Share this story: http:\/\/usat.ly\/2pe5pI2<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n See more here: Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1:48 p.m. ET April 24, 2017 Howard Dean(Photo: Thomas P. Continue reading
\nHate speech is free speech, Gov. Dean: Glenn Reynolds - USA Today - USA TODAY<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"