by Elizabeth M Young

Created on: June 29, 2010

Many people love to throw out hate speech, then run to hide behind their understanding of the US Constitution's speech protections. They are fully aware that there are many forms of speech that are prohibited by law or that can lead to civil action. Yelling "Fire!" in a public space where there is no fire, libel, slander, defamation, treason, revealing classified or legally confidential information, violating employment contracts or policies, and incitement to crime or to rioting are examples of places where the Constitution cannot go to help a person.

Hate speech can fall into any or all of the above exclusions to universal constitutional protections. As a result, there are ways to define "hate speech" and there are ways to demonstrate intolerance of hate speech.

If a manager at a firm, for example, commits perjury while testifying in an equal opportunity and treatment lawsuit by claiming to never have uttered racial hate speech, then is found to regularly made hateful utterances about other races, then an indirect form of legal sanction and intolerance occurs. It is not the hateful speech that has criminal potential, it is the perjury.

If a person is found to be a stalker, which is increasingly regarded as a serious crime, and the stalking includes public and private expressions of hate of any type, then there is an intolerance for hate speech that aggravates potential criminal situations.

When law enforcement personnel utter hate speech in the course of engaging with suspects or in tense situations, they may be professionally sanctioned or they may have their behavior approved or covered up. But when the law enforcement person is filmed kicking a prone and handcuffed person in the head, then using racial slurs, much more of a negative consequence is demanded.

As a result, hate speech must be evaluated in the context in which it occurs. In the heat of combat or law enforcement action, there will be natural expressions of hate. In the heat of political battle, there will be expressions of hate with the consequences, good or bad, being determined by the voters.

In the workplace, intolerance is expressed by employers who havethe threat of lawsuits and civil actions hanging over their heads. They will fire or otherwise sanction employees who use hate speech in order to avoid being punished for tolerating such speech. Otherwise, the targets of hate speech suffer more than just a bad day at work. The physical and emotional tolls of workplace

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>