Currently, the judiciary’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of spee

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER

ORDER NOW DISCOUNT CODE >>>> WELCOME40

Currently, the judiciary’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech clause means that ‘hate speech’ is protected and legal, so long as the speech is not a threat or a specific incitement to violence. In many other Western countries, such as France and the Netherlands, for example, ‘hate speech’, as defined by the sovereign, is illegal, and the sovereign imprisons or fines those who engage in it. Should the federal judiciary limit the scope of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, such that ‘hate speech’, as defined by the federal and/or state sovereigns, would be illegal, with criminal penalties attached? Provide arguments in support of your answer, and you may cite external sources. Note that we are not discussing credible threats or specific incitement which are currently illegal, but ‘hate speech’ which is currently protected by the 1st Amendment.

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER

ORDER NOW DISCOUNT CODE >>>> WELCOME40