On Thursday, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) came under fire when he claimed that "hate speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment," Dean tweeted Thursday.
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://t.co/DOct3xcLoY— Howard Dean (@Howard Dean)1492733596.0
His tweet came in response to a former New York Times reporter who tweeted a quote from conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who allegedly once said that her "only regret" with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh is that "he did not go to the New York Times building."
Of course, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects the rights of free speech, religious freedom, press rights, petition rights and assembly rights with very minor and small restrictions.
"Hate speech," however, has never been decided by the Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction to the First Amendment. "Hate speech" is illegal in many other countries across the globe, but not so in the U.S.
Still, that didn't stop Dean from doubling down on his comments Friday, where he argued that a Supreme Court case from 1942 â�� Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire â�� proves the First Amendment doesn't protect "hate speech."
"For WAPO and others raising issues about hate speech not being constitutionally protected, read "Chaplinsky v New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942," Dean tweeted late Friday.
For WAPO and others raising issues about hate speech not being constitutionally protected, read "Chaplinsky v New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942— Howard Dean (@Howard Dean)1492828678.0
That case, which established the "fighting words doctrine," found that "some forms of expressionâ��among them obscenity and fighting wordsâ��do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i.e., words that 'inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,'" according to Oyez.com.
The court case, however, didn't address "hate speech" like Dean claims and Twitter was quick to inform him of this fact, many of them lawyers and legal experts.
@GovHowardDean I'm a First Amendment lawyer. Your reliance on Chaplinsky is misplaced.— Geoffrey King â��ï¸� (@geoffwking) April 22, 2017
.@GovHowardDean claims the old fighting words doctrine validates his "hate speech not 1A protected" notion. Nope. https://t.co/BVhJFFI1vh— Walter Olson 😷 (@Walter Olson 😷)1492829337.0
.@GovHowardDean #HasHowardDeanCorrectedYet current status: No, he's tried to parry with an ill-informed reference t… https://t.co/tEEIs0rt7W— Walter Olson 😷 (@Walter Olson 😷)1492829823.0
@GovHowardDean dude why are you doubling down on this. Incitement =\= "hate speech"— EricaGrieder (@EricaGrieder) April 22, 2017
"Ah-ha! I know how to show those no-good know-it-all First Amendment lawyers.... they won't see Chaplinsky coming." https://t.co/cTXO9lgM7c— Adam Steinbaugh (@Adam Steinbaugh)1492830704.0
In which Howard Dean appears to endorse the Constitutionality of arresting a man for calling a police officer a "fa… https://t.co/clTRVuNqfX— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf)1492831521.0
@GovHowardDean Please leave lawyering to lawyers sir.— Rob Welch (@RobWelch) April 22, 2017
@GovHowardDean That decision is about "fighting words" directed by one individual to another, specific, individual. You may want to stick to medicine.— By the numbers (@TheRealFixNow) April 22, 2017
@GovHowardDean Just take the L, Gov.— Asher Langton (@AsherLangton) April 22, 2017