to all you legal eagles , constitutionists and 1st amendment speciliasts ,

[AllaN01Bear]

a question?

when does hate speach stop being protected from the 1st amendment and becomes a crime? i am refering to this story and others . thanks in advance .

[tritsofme]

1. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

[hlthe2b]

2. True, but SCOTUS has also upheld "hate speech" as an aggravating factor in sentencing for other

crimes. So hate speech that precedes or threatens a violent act, can be prosecuted.

The Supreme Court has upheld laws that punish hate violence as an aggravating factor in the normal sentencing guidelines. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) a gang of black youths beat up a white teenager because he was white. The Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin law that considering the hate based crime in an assault as an aggravating factor is not in contravention of the first amendment.

[stopdiggin]

4. good point. -(nt)-

[stopdiggin]

3. I do not think there is any doubt that

hate speech can cause damage -- and be both corrosive and dangerous to both individuals and social fabric. Having said that -- I see no legitimate way for (the state) to 'police' offensive speech, without causing way more problems and issues than are solved.
----- ---- ---- -----

To answer the question posed -- not until it becomes assault or tangible threat (in real physical, or near physical terms)

[billh58]

5. Although there is no "hate speech"

exception to the First Amendment, there is a legal test to determine if the speech incites a clear and present danger, or "imminent lawless action:"

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. redrafted the per curiam opinion, substituting for clear and present danger a new standard (Schwartz 1995: 27): “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

The imminent lawless action test has largely supplanted the clear and present danger test. The clear and present danger remains, however, the standard for assessing constitutional protection for speech in the military courts.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test

And then there is sedition, libel, and defamation which each have their own legal tests and applications. All enumerated "rights" are subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. thanks for those who answered my question.