The key question for Hate Speech concerns what, if any, legal restrictions should we impose on speech that promotes hatred against members of the political and civil community. While Western European nations and Canada, for instance, ban speech intended to promote racial hatred, in the United States, those bans have been struck down in the US by the federal courts.

In the United States, discussion over hate speech concerns questions such as what is hate speech? Does it refer to the words? The ideas behind the words? The attitude of the speaker in relation to the words and the target of the words? Should we focus on the emotion in the words or the vulnerable people who are subjected to hatred directed at their race, ethnicity, or religion? Should we imagine what a well-ordered society ought to look like and then make regulations based on the vision of a well-ordered society? Would a well-ordered society allow citizens to use symbols that exclude or violently exclude other members of society? Or, would a well-ordered society allow for all speech, letting citizens determine what is good speech.

These questions serve as the foundation for thinking about hate speech, especially through Beauharnais v. Illinois and R.A.V. v. St. Paul. In this discussion prompt response, I want you to begin by considering the Supreme Court cases of Beauharnais v. Illinois and R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

First, tell me specifically what types of speech the law in question sought to prohibit in each case.

Second, tell me if, in your opinion, a principled legal distinction exists between the two laws in question that would justify the fact that one law was upheld and the other struck down by the Supreme Court. If you think there is a principled legal distinction, tell me what it is; if you do not think there is a principled legal distinction, tell me which case the Supreme Court got wrong and why.

Third, I want you to consider a real-life controversy surrounding hate speech. This controversy involves people speaking on college campuses.

After addressing those foundational questions, I want you to apply that discussion to a cotemporary case study that concerns cancel culture at the modern US university. Milo Yiannopoulos, is a British speaker and writer who identifies as "ex-gay and encourages conversion therapy. He has been deemed by some to be a "notorious online troll," meaning that he is not contributing to a robust, political debate. In 2016 and 2017, he embarked on a multi-year speaking tour across the United States and Great Britain titled, "The Dangerous Faggot Tour." During that time, NYU and a host of other schools un-invited Milo Yiannopoulos from giving a speech on campus. With the cancelations, the University cited security concerns, meaning that it would cost too much money to hire enough security to ensure a peaceful speaking event. Mr. Yiannopoulos's speaking events have been known to be a setting for violence. Outside one of Mr. Yiannopoulos's speeches, a protester was critically injured when two of the alt-right speaker's fans assaulted him. In protest of Yiannopoulos speaking on the Berkeley campus, more than 1500 protesters caused $100,000 in damage and six people were injured. His inflammatory rhetoric has led to Mr. Yiannopoulos being banned from Twitter for life due to his harassment of comedian Leslie Jones (of SNL fame) and in 2019 he was banned from Facebook and Instagram for being a "dangerous" voice.

Of course, it is possible that the University canceled the speaking events because of Milo's position on several controversial positions. For example, Mr. Yiannopoulos has said that child sex abuse is "really not that big a deal. You can't let it ruin your life," and that bankruptcy is a worse thing to happen in a person's life. He has encouraged his supporters to shoot journalists and bomb publication outlets. He has claimed that all of Islam is responsible for the mistreatment of women and homosexuals. He has said that the birth control pill makes women fat, hysterical, and sexually promiscuous. He declared homosexuality to be a sin during the same month he married his husband. He claims his birthday is "World Patriarchy Day" and started a Privilege Grant for white men (whose funds he later apologized for mismanaging) to receive scholarship to supposedly balance out the scholarships women and people of color receive. 

Based on your discussion of Beauharnais v. Illinois and R.A.V. v. St. Paul, if you were NYU's general counsel, and a professor at NYU were to invite Mr. Yiannopoulos to campus to speak about politics and Halloween in the fall, would you let Mr. Yiannopoulos speak on campus? Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In Beauharnais v Illinois the law in question sought to prohibit speech that promotes racial or religious hatred The defendant Beauharnais was charged under an Illinois law that made it a crime to dis... View the full answer