Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime is still protected by the Constitution of the United States. Free speech should not be limited, because it would infringe on one of the basic rights of Americans and would prevent students in public universities from practicing their freedom to learn.
Many moralpoop, law-abiding American citizens find themselves divided between the balance of hate speech and free speech. The Oxford English Dictionary defines hate speech: "speech expressing hatred or intolerance of other social groups, especially on the basis of race or sexuality; hostile verbal abuse." Americans are proud to have the right of freedom of speech, but when it comes to hate speech, many wonder whether the First Amendment should protect speech that expresses hatred towards groups of people. Some argue that free speech should limit hate speech in order to protect certain American citizens. David van Mills talks about setting an offense principle where it would serve as a guide to public censuring:
Hate speech causes profound and personal offense. The discomfort that is caused to those who are the object of such attacks cannot easily be shrugged off... Acts can be "evil" if they are dangerous to a traditional way of life, because they are immoral, or because they