The Internet issued former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., a massive correction earlier this year when he claimed so-called hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment, and now eight Supreme Court Justices are getting in on the fun.
The one-time Democratic presidential candidate faced no small amount of criticism in April after he tweeted the following, “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.”
The former governor’s remark was made amid a larger debate about free speech on college campuses and a recent incident in which right-wing entertainer Ann Coulter was prompted to cancel a speaking engagement following bitter protests.
Social media users were quick to denounce Dean’s bogus claim.
Many rightly noted that the Bill of Rights states specifically, “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.”
True, there are no Constitutional protections for “fighting words” or threats, but that’s not what Dean said.
“There are some exceptions to the free speech clause in the First Amendment, but ‘hate speech’ is not one of them,” PolitiFact said in its “False” ruling for Dean’s claim. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held up the right of an individual or group to engage in speech that much of the public likely finds offensive, like displaying swastikas, burning crosses or protesting a soldier’s funeral.”
Dean attempted later to defend his assertion by citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1942 in the “Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire,” which, uh, dealt with “fighting words,” not hate speech.
For WAPO and others raising issues about hate speech not being constitutionally protected, read “Chaplinsky v New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 22, 2017
On Monday, the Supreme Court put the final nail in Dean’s silly coffin by voting unanimously that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in one opinion:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a separate opinion:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Dean has not yet commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling. We eagerly await his informed counterargument.
