FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES DEFEND THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS IDEAS — EVEN OFFENSIVE, HATEFUL, AND UNPOPULAR. NOT SPEECH THAT IS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY INCITES VIOLENCE, THREATENS HARM OR DEFAMES OTHERS. 

The following forms of expression do not receive First Amendment protection (in U.S. constitutional law) because they cause or are likely to cause legally cognizable harm: 

Incitement to violence (Unprotected speech)

Actual threats, Unprotected speech) creating fear of bodily harm. 

Defamation, Civil wrong (tort) — false statements harming reputation. 

Slander (subtype of defamation). 

Libel: Written defamation of the public.

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES DON'T DEFEND THESE FORMS ABOVE

True threats: At a rally, a speaker points to a nearby shop, tells the crowd “They’re our enemies — smash those windows right now!” and the crowd begins to do so. 

Defamation: “Dr. Smith knowingly falsifies medical records and billed patients for surgeries he never performed,” when the speaker knows it’s untrue and the claim damages Smith’s practice. 

Slander: During a public meeting, a person stands up and says, “Councilwoman Jones stole $50,000 from the city budget,” knowing it’s false, and the accusation harms her career.

Libel: A newspaper prints an article claiming: “Local teacher Karen Liu was fired for sexually abusing students,” when no such thing happened.

In your papers, DO NOT present any of these forms as legitimate characterizations of free speech, nor assume free speech advocates support it. 

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES SUPPORT THESE:

MILL PRINCIPLE

The best remedy for harmful or dangerous ideas is more speech, not suppression —unless the speech crosses into direct harm (like threats or incitement).

CONTENT NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLE

The government cannot restrict speech based on dislike of its message, only on legitimate harms (e.g., violence, intimidation, defamation).

FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE DEFENDS 

Broad free-speech protection for controversial, offensive, or unpopular ideas — while accepting the traditional carve-outs that directly cause legally recognized harm. This is referred as: 

Civil libertarianism 

Free-speech maximalism (with exceptions)

The classical liberal/free-expression tradition

We defend the right to express ideas — even offensive, hateful, and unpopular ones — but we do not protect speech that is legally actionable because it directly incites violence, threatens harm, or defames others.

We aren’t defending incitement or threats — WE DEFEND the freedom to say things others might strongly disagree with, dislike, find disturbing, or find morally wrong, so long as it does not cross into the domain of actionable harm.