Is This Generation ‘Too Sensitive’? What Determines Hate Speech?

Today, the term' hate speech' is used broadly and often leads to confusion as to what it encompasses. Though there is no definitive answer for what hate speech really is, there are many ways to distinguish between regular speech and hate speech. Hate speech should be limited by the law, considering that it infringes on the rights of others as well, such as the right to personal safety. This article argues that while free speech is essential to democracy, hate speech warrants legal and social limits because of its capacity to cause real harm. 

When thinking about the characteristics of a democracy, one of the very first points that comes to mind is the idea of free speech. In other words, the idea that whatever you say can not be censored by the government or any other legal body. Freedom of speech protects the free press, which acts as a watchdog of the government, so that citizens are not manipulated by the government. By being granted this right, the people can hold the government accountable and ensure that both majority and minority voices are represented, thereby influencing the rule of law. 

One of the earliest and landmark cases the Supreme Court has ever decided on free speech is Schenck v. United States (1919), in which Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act but claimed that this conviction violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. While the Supreme Court held that it did not violate the Espionage Act, they established the 'clear and present danger test' where the First Amendment does not protect any speech that demonstrates a clear threat. In other words, a person can not go into a public place such as a movie theatre and yell fire. 

Later on, the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) was established, in which a Ku Klux Klan member made a speech at a rally and was later convicted. The court ruled that his conviction was unconstitutional, but created a test to rule that speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." 

There are many ways someone could argue for and against limiting freedom of speech. Many say that some of the rights people hold are already being infringed, and that freedom of speech should not be one of them. Even so, there are many instances in which this right becomes more precise in protecting people. 

As society continues to debate this issue, it is not a question of whether we should speak freely, but rather how we can do so responsibly. So, is this generation 'too sensitive '? We may be becoming so because we realize that words have consequences; perhaps that is why there is no clear-cut definition of what hate speech really means, and we, as a generation, are more aware of words that correlate with harm.