• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Donate
  • Start
    • Contact
    • We Need Your Support (Donate)
    • Newsletter Signup
      • Daily
      • Weekly
    • Into the Storm (Hosted by Justin Deschamps)
    • Follow Our Social Media
    • Best Telegram Channels & Groups
    • Discernment 101
    • Media Archive (Shows, Videos, Presentations)
    • Where’s The Hope
  • Browse
    • Editor’s Top Content (Start Here)
    • Best Categories
      • Consciousness
      • Conspiracy
      • Disclosure
      • Extraterrestrials
      • History
      • Health
      • NWO Deep State
      • Philosophy
      • Occult
      • Self Empowerment
      • Spirituality
    • By Author
      • Justin Deschamps
        • Articles
        • Into The Storm (on EdgeofWonder.TV)
        • Awarewolf Radio (Podcast)
      • Adam AstroYogi Sanchez
      • Amber Wheeler
      • Barbara H Whitfield RT and Charles L Whitfield MD
      • Chandra Loveguard
      • Conscious Optimist
      • Marko De Francis
      • Lance Schuttler
        • EMF Harmonized (Cell Phone, Wi-Fi, Radiation Protection
      • Ryan Delarme
      • Will Justice
  • Products
    • EMF Harmonized (Cell Phone, Wi-Fi, Radiation Protection
    • Earth Science & Energy
    • Free Energy
    • AI and Transhumanism
    • Space
    • Nikola Tesla
    • ET
      • Ancient Technology
      • Crop Circles
      • UFOs
    • Conspiracy
      • Anti NWO Deep State
      • Domestic Spying
      • Freemasonry
      • Law & Legal Corruption
      • Mass Mind Control
      • NWO Conspiracy
      • Police State and Censorship
      • Propaganda
      • Snowden Conspiracy
      • Social Engineering
    • Misc.
      • Council on Foreign Relations
      • Music Industry
      • Paranormal
      • Pedagate and Pedophilia
      • Q Anon
      • Secret Space Program
      • White Hat
  • Sign Up
  • Election Fraud
  • Partners
    • EMF Harmonized
    • Ascent Nutrition

Stillness in the Storm

An Agent for Consciousness Evolution

  • Our Story
  • Support Us
  • Contact
  •  Tuesday, April 21, 2026
  • Store
  • Our Social
    • BitChute
    • CloutHub
    • Gab
    • Gab TV
    • Gettr
    • MeWe
      • MeWe Group
    • Minds
    • Rumble
    • SubscribeStar
    • Telegram
      • Best Telegram Channels and Groups
    • Twitter (Justin Duchamps)
    • YouTube

Hate Speech vs. Free Speech: A Critical Analysis by Constitutional Law Expert Sujit Choudhry

Friday, June 16, 2017 By Justin Deschamps Leave a Comment

Spread the love



(Sujit Choudhry) Since its inception as America’s founding political document, there have
been 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. Even the most
adept scholars can rarely name and define each one. Many amendments are
obscure and deal with legal nuances like changes in representation and
how to handle US citizens who come into a foreign title of nobility.
While these constitutional adjustments
rarely get public attention, the First Amendment continues to spark
controversy across a wide swath of the US population. What is free
speech? What does the Constitution protect? What is the difference
between hate speech and free speech? With the recent attention on the
safe space movement on college campuses, it’s increasingly important to
understand the legal parameters of the First Amendment.



Related Free Speech vs. Political Correctness — Without Discussion Social Problems Can’t Be Solved | Dr. Norman Doidge and Dr. Jordan Peterson Presentation



Source – Activist Post

by Sujit Choudhry, June 14th, 2017

Understanding Freedom of Speech

The United States Constitution is a document best understood in context. The first ten amendments were written shortly after ratification of the document and were a direct reaction to political issues and human rights’ violations that the founders experienced. In pre-revolutionary England, citizens risked penalization, censure and often even prosecution for speaking or publishing controversial views. The First Amendment’s primary focus was protecting political and religious expressions. They were, in essence, designed to safeguard the people from government pressure. Still, as late as 1798, when President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, the scope of free speech was still up in the air. In the end, the court of public opinion decided the issue when an adverse public reaction eventually killed the legislation before the Supreme Court had a chance to weigh in.

Related A Discussion on Rights — Using Your Rights Wisely is the Key to Personal Freedom and Social Harmony

The wording of the First Amendment is relatively straightforward. At the core, Americans receive protections to exercise their religious beliefs freely, with specific prohibitions against the government passing laws to restrict religious practice. In addition, free speech is protected as well as a free press, with no restriction on citizens assembling peaceably. The confusion comes when people don’t understand what each of those things means, or when broader interpretations are applied to legal definitions that are, in reality, more narrow.

 

What About Hate Speech?

Across the board, Americans are widely in support of the idea of free speech. Yet, there is a growing movement promoting social justice and hate speech restrictions. As a legal issue, those ideas are contradictory. There are exceptions to the right to free speech; it’s not anything goes. However, the limitations are quite specific. While some states have enacted targeted hate speech laws, there is no constitutional prohibition specifically addressing hate speech. In a broader sense, some hate speech may fall under the category of exceptions labeled “Fighting Words and Offensive Speech.” As early as 1942, the Supreme Court determined that spoken or written words that would likely provoke violence or incite an imminent breach of peace are not protected under the First Amendment. In addition, threatening someone directly is unprotected speech. General statements against a group, threats made as hyperbole, or words that cause emotional distress but no physical harm fall under the umbrella of free speech and cannot be prosecuted or restricted.

Related 5 Things You Should Know About Social Justice & Universities

Free Speech and College Campuses

There is nowhere in America more volatile on the issue of free speech than the United States college campus. Traditionally, colleges are bastions of free thought and critical thinking. However, the last decade has seen a dramatic shift in corporate attitudes at institutions of higher learning. Many colleges today are left-leaning, with an ever-weakening tolerance for ideas that don’t fit into a pre-defined narrative. Conservative organizations such as the Federalist Society react with increased activism. The polarized political climate of the 2016 Presidential elections dramatically increased political correctness on college campuses, creating ideas like “safe spaces” and personal censuring. As a legal issue, these ideas are not conducive with the definition of free speech. Yet, student activism has indeed changed school policies. While some universities remain dedicated to protecting the free exchange of ideas, speakers such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos were pulled from the speaking docket of prestigious universities like Berkeley, an institution traditionally in support of free speech. What students may not understand, however, is that the same standard they apply to their social and political opponents creates a precedent that can also restrict their freedom of expression.

At the most basic level, the college climate illustrates why free speech is so important. Human nature causes people to pigeonhole themselves into a relatively narrow range of thoughts and ideas, largely determined by their social, religious and cultural climates. For this reason, we see such a broad divide between the far left and the alt-right political perspectives. The only way to broaden those perspectives is to challenge them with competing ideas, opening each issue up to nuance and risking a breach of safe space in favor of emotional growth and human understanding. Free speech is essential to this process. If hate speech restrictions are too broad, interference in the exchange of ideas can lead to less tolerance, the very thing social justice strives to overcome.

The Role of Social Media

For most of America’s history, the transfer of information and ideas was a slow process. Before telegram, radio and telephones, information took weeks to travel from coast to coast. Social spheres were quite small, with the majority of associations staying within a 100-mile radius of a person’s home. Social groups remained relatively uniform, with universally accepted social standards. A conservative rural community reading more liberal ideas in metropolitan newspapers would quickly dismiss them as outside their cultural context. In the last 50 years, the Internet has turned that model on its head completely. Social media exposes the full spectrum of political opinions in real time, bringing new and different ideas right to your front door. It’s impossible to pretend ignorance against conflicting ideas, and people are forced to interact with an increasingly diverse pool of acquaintances. This is undoubtedly uncomfortable and historically new, so it’s no surprise that there is broad resistance. Still, discomfort leads to both personal and societal growth, making it a net positive.

Related University Professor Speaks Out Against Anti-Free Speech Laws — Weaponized Psychology and Political Correctness

The United States Constitution legally protects your fundamental human rights. Every citizen should feel free from an immediate threat, so limited speech restrictions make sense. However, valuing free speech means that our collective tolerance for new ideas needs to increase. Redefining every negative interaction as hate speech hurts everyone, creating a climate of political correctness that ultimately muzzles every American. There is a reason that free speech is legally defined. No one person or group can impose their ideas or priorities on another, nor should they. Ultimately, these values promote mutual respect, which creates the safest public climate for all citizens across every political stripe and social issue.

About The Author


Sujit Choudhry is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Transitions and the I. Michael Heyman Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley – School of Law. Follow Sujit Choudhry on Twitter, LinkedIn or Facebook for more information, or visit his website at www.sujitchoudhry.
_________________________
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected] with the error, headline and url. Thank you for reading.

_______

Source:


http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/hate-speech-vs-free-speech-critical-analysis-constitutional-law-expert-sujit-choudhry.html

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: disclosure, fraud of the system, geopolitics, law, Legal system, self education, social programing

Notices and Disclaimers

We need $2000 per month to pay our costs. Help us one time or recurring. (DONATE HERE)

To sign up for RSS updates, paste this link (https://stillnessinthestorm.com/feed/) into the search field of your preferred RSS Reader or Service (such as Feedly or gReader).

Subscribe to Stillness in the Storm Newsletter

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

This website is supported by readers like you.

If you find our work of value, consider making a donation. 

Stillness in the Storm DISCLAIMER: All articles, videos, statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by Stillness in the Storm as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by Stillness, those who work with Stillness, or those who read Stillness. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate, fact check, and no harm comes to you or those around you. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.

Content Disclaimer: All content on this site marked with “source – [enter website name and url]” is not owned by Stillness in the Storm. All content on this site that is not originally written, created, or posted as original, is owned by the original content creators, who retain exclusive jurisdiction of all intellectual property rights. Any copyrighted material on this site was shared in good faith, under fair use or creative commons. Any request to remove copyrighted material will be honored, provided proof of ownership is rendered. Send takedown requests to [email protected].

What is our mission? Why do we post what we do?

Our mission here is to curate (share) articles and information that we feel is important for the evolution of consciousness. Most of that information is written or produced by other people and organizations, which means it does not represent our views or opinions as managing staff of Stillness in the Storm. Some of the content is written by one of our writers and is clearly marked accordingly. Just because we share a CNN story that speaks badly about the President doesn’t mean we’re promoting anti-POTUS views. We’re reporting on the fact as it was reported, and that this event is important for us to know so we can better contend with the challenges of gaining freedom and prosperity. Similarly, just because we share a pro/anti-[insert issue or topic] content, such as a pro-second amendment piece or an anti-military video doesn’t mean we endorse what is said. Again, information is shared on this site for the purpose of evolving consciousness. In our opinion, consciousness evolves through the process of accumulating knowledge of the truth and contemplating that knowledge to distill wisdom and improve life by discovering and incorporating holistic values. Thus, sharing information from many different sources, with many different perspectives is the best way to maximize evolution. What’s more, the mastery of mind and discernment doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it is much like the immune system, it needs regular exposure to new things to stay healthy and strong. If you have any questions as to our mission or methods please reach out to us at [email protected].

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search Our Archives

FUNDRAISER!

Latest Videos

Guarding Against Bio Tech and EMF - Fix The World Project | Just In Stillness

From around the web

News “they” don’t want you to see

Newsletter

You can unsubscribe anytime. For more details, review our Privacy Policy.

Thank you!

You have successfully joined our subscriber list.

.

We Need Your Support

Support our work!

Weekly Newsletter Sign UP

Only want to see emails once a week? Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter here: SIGN UP. (Make sure you send an email to [email protected] to confirm the change or it won’t work).

Latest Videos

Footer

  • Menus
  • Internship Program
  • RSS
  • Social Media
  • Media
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2026 · Privacy Policy · Log in · Built by

This website wouldn't be the same without the ethical web hosting provided by Modern Masters. Modern Masters ethically serves small businesses in metaphysical, paranormal, healing, spirituality, homesteading, acupuncture and other related fields. Get the perfect website for your sacred work at Modern Masters.