# data[].attributes.body
After reading the article on ""First Amendment and Hate Speech"" and watching videos, explain the purpose of the 1st amendment and if you think hate speech should be censored and if hate speech is linked to hate crimes.

Comment
Must have first and last name at top of comment.

Must have CLAIM, EXPLAIN, EXAMPLE/EVIDENCE from article.

Respond
Must have first and last name at top of response.

Must respond on 2 others that you agree:

explain why you agree

Must respond on 2 others that you disagree:

explain why you disagree

EXAMPLE
Censorship should/should not be allowed because _________________________.  Freedom of Speech was created because______________________ (claim and explanation.) An example of this is _____________________________ (example). In the article, the author states_________________________ (insert quote for your evidence.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is it time to reconsider whether hateful speech deserves constitutional protection?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.body
We should not use censorship with ideas that we do not agree with within our nation. If we censor ideas, we give more power to the government and the people deciding what is censored. We lose the power to speak out and share our opinions. We give the government the ability to chose what we hear and influence us. An example of this is biased news companies. They spread knowledge that has an opinion that is made to influence our views. “‘But the problem is, if we outlaw speech, that means the government or others in authority are going to be picking and choosing what we hear. We need to be able to hear all sides because that’s how we become intelligent voters and responsible citizens’” The first amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, the right to assemble, and petition for a change in the government. The first amendment should also protect hate speech. I understand that in doing this, there could be more conflict and disagreements, however, disagreements are how we grow. Through disagreements, new ideas are made that could help our nation grow. If we don’t speak up against what we believe is wrong, there won’t be any progress in our nation. Without conflict, we will be living the same life everyday. “The landmark case helped clarify that all people have the right to rally publicly, no matter how offensive their views”

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the first amendment should sometimes and only sometimes protect hate speech depending on whether or not it is inflicting more violence on other people. For example some people want to promote hate speech on social media platforms like Twitter. However usually these people don’t get far and don’t do much. Like how someone is promoting Neo-Nazis they are immediately stopped by other people that believe this is seriously wrong. Like when Neo-Nazis wanted to march they were stopped because a lot of people didn't agree with them. “The neo-Nazis never ended up marching in the town because Ben Stern and other residents in the community exercised their own First Amendment rights.”

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship should not be allowed because it violates freedom of speech. That was created to give people more power and to lessen the governments hold on the people. An example of this was when the Neo-nazis were protesting  in the streets, trying to persecute freedom of speach in the US. officials did not know what to do, deny the hate speech, or allow it? "“should free speech be extended to speakers whose purpose and message is to deny free speech, people who want to overthrow the government by violence and—if successful—bring about the end of free speech?” this was a quote from the atricle Just because hate groups have the right to speak doesn’t mean others can’t respond by Joseph Berger.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the first amendment should protect some hate speech, but not hate groups that riot and hurt people for having difference views from them. Peaceful protests are a whole other thing, and are totally acceptable, but if you can’t express your opinion while respecting the rights of others, you should be punished by law. A perfect example of this is the BLM protests. The peaceful protests were totally acceptable, but the looters and rioters should have been punished for destroying other peoples’ property. Another example is when hate groups stormed the capitol. The protests were again, totally acceptable but storming the US capitol, a symbol of democracy in the United States and killing people in the process is unacceptable. The article explains how hate groups such as neo-nazis terrorized jews and non-white people and how it got them nowhere in the long run.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the first amendment should not protect hate speech. However, i do think that it should protect the ability for people to say what they think and hear the other side and be able to argue, which i believe is what it was intended for. I think people have taken hate speech way to far and it is not only dividing our country more but it is hurting the american people, which is the last thing we need. I believe freedom of speech was created for people to be able to say what they want to say and be able to debate with others in a peaceful manner but it is no longer really peaceful. The first amendment protects the freedom  of speech, religion, press, the right to assemble and a petiotion for change in our government however i argue that hate speech is taking it to far just because of the fact is causes violence some of the time.

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship should not be allowed in our country because then some people’s opinions and beliefs would be put down. Freedom of speech was created so we could all voice our opinions and concerns as citizens whether other people agreed with them or not. In the article it says, “an overwhelming 85 percent of Americans said the right to speak freely is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say”. By adding censorship it would be taking away our rights.  In the article Strum states, “ As citizens, we all have rights, but we also have responsibilities to speak up and counter bad speech with good speech. It’s what we do in a democracy.” Not everyone is going to agree on what should and should not be censored because we all have the right to our own opinions and the right to back it up.

# data[].attributes.body
The first amendment was created to limit the size of the government. People didn't want to  have their government regulate their speech, so the founders made it an amendment that you had the freedom of speech, religion, press, and petition. Some forms of hate speech should be censored. Even thought censoring something isn't the best option for dealing with a problem. It should still be an option for the government to use. This would only work if the issue being talked about is intentionally aggravating people for no reason and/or incited violence or has a root in violence. The process to censor something should be pretty in depth so the government can't block anything they don't like and this would stop the problem from happening in the future. An example of hate speech that should be censored is the Neo Nazi movement. This was talked about in the article, but was allowed to thrive because of the first amendment. The movement itself derives from the Nazis back in WW2 which caused millions of deaths and clearly shows violence. Overall the solution to hateful speech shouldn't be censoring because that doesn't solve the problem it just hides in in a hole where no one can see it, but if the option does come up they should be allowed to censor hateful things.

# data[].attributes.body
No, I don’t think we should censor things, much less ideas we disagree with, unless they promote immediate violence. The government does not need to control what ideas we believe in. If the government did become extremely corrupt, these first amendment rights protect us, and would allow us to retaliate. Just because we can say things doesn’t mean we should.“what’s legal and what’s right are sometimes different.” I also believe that the first amendment should protect hate speech. As much as I look down upon hate speech, if we begin to censor it the line between what is and isn’t hate speech becomes blurred. It's impossible to fairly judge if something is truly hate speech, there will always be a bias. This leads to everyday usage of the freedom of speech to be censored. “But the problem is, if we outlaw speech, that means the government or others in authority are going to be picking and choosing what we hear. We need to be able to hear all sides because that's how we become intelligent voters and responsible citizens.” Hearing things we don't like helps strengthen us and our beliefs. If we begin to censor hate speech, we begin to censor free speech. (As long as it doesn't promote immediate violence that is.)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the first amendment should not protect hate speech if it directly provokes violence. In order to prevent corruption, I think the speech should be deeply reviewed first before it's censored. Many changes in our country, like the abolishment of slavery and segregation, were not ideas originally excepted by most people and yet now practically everyone in our country supports them. This is why we need to be very careful about what we do. Censorship should not be allowed, except for during very select circumstances, like when people directly tell people to do violent or illegal things. Freedom of speech was created so that the government can't silence people and so that everyone has the opportunity to speak up, regardless of whether people think they are wrong or not. By allowing the government to silence people that they disagree with, we are throwing away what our founding fathers and our country fought for.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think ideas in our nation should be censored, although I do think that people should start approaching things in a less violent way, so their ideas come off clearer. Freedom of speech was created so people could share their thoughts so If our ideas were censored people wouldn’t be able to see different points of views in the argument. We would be closed minded and we would be set on one idea, without knowing the others. An example that is similar to this situation is on social media. If you follow certain accounts your feed will be closed minded and it will only talk about one idea. In the article First Amendment and Hate Speech it states, “But the problem is, if we outlaw speech, that means the government or others in authority are going to be picking and choosing what we hear”. Although censoring ideas will lead to the problems stated above, censoring can also help things like hate crime. Censoring ideas will lead to less hate crime. All in all censoring ideas can lead to many problems, which means that we should not use censorship.

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t think that ideas in our nation that we disagree with should be censored, but I do think that people should try to filter what they say out loud. Freedom of speech was created so we would be able to understand both sides of the argument. We would't be set on what we think is true and we would listen to what others have to say. Understanding both sides helps us expand our opinion. One situation could be when you follow certain people on social media you will only see things that you agree with and you think is right. If things were censored you wouldn’t understand other’s points of view. An example of why we shouldn’t censor speech is according to the article, “But the problem is, if we outlaw speech, that means the government or others in authority are going to be picking and choosing what we hear.” Also, I do think that hate speech sometimes causes hate crime. All in all, speech that we don’t agree with shouldn’t be censored.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that whether or not we censor hate speech would depend on the circumstances, whether or not that speech is hurting other people’s lives or violating their rights. If hate speech is not interfering with other people’s lives or putting them in danger then I don’t think it should be censored. And, if we do decide to control what ideas are put out into the world that would give the government the power to control what information we see. According to the article First Amendment and Hate Speech, “The question, he says, is “should free speech be extended to speakers whose purpose and message is to deny free speech, people who want to overthrow the government by violence and—if successful—bring about the end of free speech?” Everything regarding the first amendment is contradictory to itself, we want to be able to protect people’s rights while protecting others’ as well. I think that hate speech is the root of hate crimes, and if we were able to stop hate speech it might directly affect the number of hate crimes. I think that most hate speech should be protected by the first amendment unless it is putting people or the country in danger.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion I feel that it is a very good argument for people who want no censorship and people who want censorship. People who want censorship have there reasons to protect and keep everyone safe and happy. But people who don't care for it I feel might just want to speak there mind. Or It is easy for people to get angry at them but by stopping them from saying what they want is not going to stop them form saying or thinking it.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a really hard topic to write and speak about. First of all its terribble that Neo Nazis would bring back such horid ideas and ethics that were stomped on 80 years ago. Its important to be respectful of other peoples views. So in my opinion Hate speeches are peoples opinions. At least they are meant to be. Most of the time I think that they are just meant to agravate people and stir drama. besides that it is important to repect peoples opinions and beliefs. Its impossible to control and judge the limit of how much we should censor hate speech and what we should censor. It is too hard to make everything fair. "But now, 40 years later, some legal experts are starting to question whether all speech—including hateful speech—deserves constitutional protection." based on this quote we can see that fair is a strong word. my dad used to tell me Life is unfair but if you work hard enough to make yourself relevent then whether or not life was unfair years ago isn't going to matter. This is very relevent to this topic because we are going to have to live with these people exploiting freedom of speech.-Landon Miller.

# data[].attributes.body
No, I don’t think we should censor things, much less ideas we disagree with, unless they promote immediate violence. Freedom of speech was made for both of the sides of the argument and not to promote hateful things like KKK  or neo nazis did. It's impossible to control and judge the limit of how much we should censor hate speech and what we should censor. It is too hard to make everything fair.

# data[].attributes.body
when It comes to censorship and freedom of speech I believe that we should not censor all speech but instead give it some limits. the article states,“‘If you do something in a threatening or intimidating way, the First Amendment should not be protecting you,’ says Thane Rosenbaum, a professor at the New York University School of Law. ‘You have a right to be a Klansman, but not if it is expressed in a way that is intimidating.’” I strongly agree with this quote because I too believe that one should definitely be able to peacefully protest and say what they want to but if that speech starts to become more violent and threatening than the constitution should not be protecting you. By protecting this type of speech you are making way for violence in the name of freedom. to conclude I believe that we should not completely censor our freedom of speech but instead give it some limits of when to put a foot down.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the first amendment is to make people feel like they have a say in what is going on in the country and that they can stand up for what they believe in. However, I do believe we need censorship because people can stand up for terrible things but it is still constitutional. For example, In 1977 a small group of American Neo- Nazis called the National Socialist Party of America wanted to hold a rally trying to bring back the way of the Nazis. You would think that no one would support this,  “But the neo-Nazis found an unlikely ally in the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.), a legal rights group that took their case. The dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which helped clear the way for a lower court to rule that the neo-Nazis had a right to march under the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.” So basically protesting against racial equality is supported by the constitution which is why I believe that we need to censor the first amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Well..In my opinion I kinda agree with both sides because I think if you have the right to say something  it can be offensive or intimidating to other people that may disagree with you or offend somebody there can be violence creating multiple people or just 1 that can cause it. I don't think that it can protect you at all but at the same time i think you should be able to share your ideas?
- idk what im saying?

# data[].attributes.body
In which case did the Supreme Court rule that a speech made by a member of the KKK was allowable because its content was political

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship in my opinion should not be allowed because with restrictions on laws and freedoms, especially a freedom as fragile as this one, the whole freedom could disappear so much to the point where we don't have that freedom anymore, which could become a big problem and a lot more protests and riots.  Freedom of speech was created to stop the government from having to much power over us citizens.  If we give the government to much power to make laws against this freedom, they could in fact take it away completely.  According to the article, "American laws are 'the most protective of free speech of any nation on Earth and any nation in history,' says Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and a free speech legal expert." Even though this may be dangerous in some cases, so is taking this freedom of ours away. I just don't feel that it is worth it to limit our freedoms in fear of taking them away.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that we should use censorship with free speech. I say this because in order to grow as individuals and as a nation we have to be open to new ideas and we have to be able to listen to people even if they disagree with us. An example of this is right now you might disagree with me and say that we should have censorship on free speech but reading this could change your point of view and make you change your opinion on the matter. You have to be able to listen to other people because other people can influence you and your ideas. In the article, Philippa Strum states, “‘But the problem is, if we outlaw speech, that means the government or others in authority are going to be picking and choosing what we hear. We need to be able to hear all sides because that’s how we become intelligent voters and responsible citizens.’” This shows why we should not use censorship on free speech because if we do you might not be able to stand up for something you believe in. The first amendment should protect hate speech. I believe this because hate speech is just you talking about what you believe in and you should always be able to do that. An example of this is someone hating nonwhite people. This person has to express themselves so that people can halp them understand and learn from that and how that is not okay. According to the article, “When the neo-Nazis heard of the massive counter-demonstration being planned, they moved their rally to another location.” When you stand up for yourself you can help others learn too.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that censorship should not be allowed because we would be bringing down the beliefs of many people and we would be giving the government more power and the ability to stop us from voicing our opinions. But I do believe there should be some limits when it becomes more violet and people could get hurt. For example in the article Should the first amendment protect hate speech it says  "Last August, the A.C.L.U. defended the right of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the Ku Klux Klan to stage a march protesting Charlottesville’s plan to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The demonstration went forward with protesters numbering in the hundreds, many of them armed with assault rifles." Because of this protect 19 people who disagreed were hurt and one was killed. Since situation like this happen you can see that hate speech could lead to hate crimes or be one aspect of why a hate crime happens. Therefore stopping hate speech could lead to less hate crimes happening and that should be done. But I believe that not all hate speech should be stopped only when it is endangering society.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like censorship is a very difficult topic to talk about, especially if someone relates it to freedom of speech. While I was reading the article “Should the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?” I was having very conflicting thoughts on the matter.  I think that in some capacity we should censor things, but sometimes it goes to far and people have the right to be angry about it. I don’t think that we should censor or punish people who talk about things that were or are bad so long as they are being used in an educational setting to say that “Hey, this is bad because…”. For example, I know that on YouTube, a lot of educational creators can’t talk about events such as the Holocaust thoroughly. Talking about the Coronavirus is also difficult on the platform because they don’t like sensitive subjects. I also think that if someone is using their First Amendment rights to incite violence, then they should be censored or punished. For example, the people at the Capitol on January 6, could have peacefully protested, but they didn’t which resulted in lots of damage done to the building, as well as the deaths of some and injuries of many. Then there are examples from the article like when a group of neo-Nazis wanted to demonstrate in a mostly Jewish town. I think that the way the locals dealt with the situation by countering it is a good example of ways to peacefully say that someone is wrong without violence. The topic goes both ways, for me I can not choose which to side with so all I will say is that censorship should only be used in severe situations to make sure that people feel like their right to freedom of speech has been honored.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of the 1st amendment is to give us the right to have opinions on things like religion, politics, and how well the government is doing. I don't think that hate speech that doesn't incite immediate violence should be censored. The worst things that can happen is that somebody gets offended. Hate speech that incites violence is already not protected. Hate speech definitely has some kind of impact on hate crimes. For example, the neo Nazis protesting which eventually led to the car incident where people got injured or got killed. Even though there is some sort of connections censoring hate speech won't fix anything. People will still commit hate crimes, maybe even more to protest hate speech being censored.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that censorship should not be allowed because we would be bringing down the beliefs of many people and we would be giving the government more power and the ability to stop us from voicing our opinions.  But at the same time I think there should be a limit if it comes down to violence and people start getting hurt. Like how the neo Nazis protesting which eventually led to the car incident where people got injured or got killed. That is where there should be punishment when people still start getting hurt.

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship should not be allowed because it is violating the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of the first amendment is give the right for people to speak out. This is important because

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of the first amendment is give the right for people to speak out. This is important because a democracy is run by the citizens so they should get a say in what the government is doing for example they can disagree about what the government is doing. Censorship should not be allowed because then the government will get power and peoples freedom of speech will go down slightly.

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship should not be allowed because the purpose of the first amendment is freedom of speech whether or not the speech is offensive or isn't offensive. Freedom of speech was created to protect the people from being prosecuted for their opinions and thoughts. If we censor any types of speech, no matter how hateful or offensive it may be, we lose our right to be individuals with our own thoughts and free will. Everyone also has the right to disagree with any speech and voice their good thoughts to counteract the bad. I believe through a variety of different views on a subject will always bring light to the subject matter even if it is offensive or not. With any censorship, people will always find underground methods of voicing them any way. I believe the hate speeches are offensive but as long as the speech does not encourage violence towards people, destruction of property, or violates rights of others, are just words. We were taught that "stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This relates to being resilient and not letting words or opinions of others affect our self and self worth. The author of the article states that, "As citizens, we all have rights, but we also have responsibilities to speak up and counter bad speech with good speech. It's what we do in a democracy."

# data[].attributes.body
Censorship should only be allowed for only extreme cases because it violates the first amendment and a basic right. The reason that freedom of speech is in the constitution is so that we can express our opinions and help make a change. Look at any middle age monarchy for example. When people spoke out or disagreed with the kinds beliefs, they would go to jail or be executed. This didn't work out well because it made people basically slaves and that is another violation of rights.
"It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment." This quote from The Washington Post helps make my point clearer. This is the kind of thing that we should censor, it is not just a citizen voicing their opinion, it is a hacker hoping to spread lies which people believed.