Hate Speech

What is hate speech? It is something in the ear of the listener. Words have to annoy someone if they are going to qualify. This is not very difficult.  But who is the someone and how many somebodies object & why? These are issues for public policy regarding Free Speech, which gets us into the core of politics. The Americans understood matters; they were firmly for freedom. That is why the very #First Amendment to the United State Constitution confirms, not grants the right to free speech. The Second Amendment aka the Right To Keep And Bear Arms  comes after. So knowing the truth comes first. Having the weapons gives the power to do protect against criminals and corrupt government is next. So it is that the Second Amendment Means Freedom.

Her Majesty's Government has chosen to outlaw “racial hatred” using the Public Order Act 1986  It applies to Englishmen but not foreigners but then Her Majesty's Government Is Rotten. Of course Her Majesty's Allegedly Most Loyal Opposition is just as bad, if not worse.

First Amendment to the United State Constitution ex Wiki             
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was originally proposed to assuage Anti-Federalist opposition to Constitutional ratification. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.

 

The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws
QUOTE
All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the EU adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.........

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent.  The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.................

The (nonbinding) universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr) adopted in 1948 does not include an explicit duty to prohibit hate speech. Article 19 simply secures “freedom of opinion and expression.”..........

Despite the Sub-Commission’s rejection of a limitation clause, the Soviet delegates did not give up their effort to limit the substantive rights set forth in the udhr and in particular on freedom of expression. But the Soviet efforts to restrict Article 19 were rejected in the Third Committee, as several Western and non-Western countries worried that “fascism,” which the Soviet proposal aimed to prohibit, could not be defined.............

The drafting of Article 7 started in the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities. The Soviet Union presented a proposal that included an obligation to prohibit “Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hostility or of national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, as well as any action establishing a privilege or a discrimination based on distinctions of race, nationality, or religion constitute a crime and shall be punishable under the law of the state.” The U.S. and Belgian experts vociferously opposed this proposal and sought to prevent a vote upon it............

 When challenged by the Soviet Union, the uk representative pointed out that during World War II, Hitler’s Mein Kampf had not been banned and was readily available in the uk, and that its government “would maintain and fight for its conception of liberty as resolutely as it had fought against Hitler.”
UNQUOTE
If free speech cannot be offensive it is not free.