Do some types of speech deserve more constitutional protection than others? If so, describe one (1) type that deserves the most protection and one (1) type that deserves the least.
That's your assignment. What do YOU THINK? Read lots, and let us know.
http://www.google.com/search?q=constitutional+protection+speech&oq=constitutional+protection+speech&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61.8305j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8
The question of which types of speech deserve more or less constitutional protection is a complex and subjective matter. The determination of the level of protection given to different types of speech varies across jurisdictions due to different legal frameworks and societal values. However, I can provide an explanation on how you can approach this topic and present two common perspectives: one on speech deserving the most protection, and another on speech deserving the least protection.
1. Speech deserving the most protection: Many legal scholars and proponents of free speech argue that political speech is deserving of the highest level of constitutional protection. Political speech includes discussions, expressions, and activities related to government, elections, political candidates, public policies, and matters of public interest. This type of speech is seen as vital to the democratic process, allowing citizens to participate in and influence government decisions.
To support this argument, you can refer to legal precedents such as landmark Supreme Court cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that political speech advocating for lawless action is protected unless it incites imminent violence. You can also cite the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which explicitly safeguards the freedom of speech, with political speech being a core component.
2. Speech deserving the least protection: On the other hand, there are some viewpoints that argue for limitations on certain types of speech. One example often discussed is the concept of "hate speech." Hate speech refers to expressions that attack or demean individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Advocates for limiting hate speech argue that it can lead to real-world harm, discrimination, and violence against marginalized communities.
When discussing speech deserving the least protection, it is important to acknowledge that legal systems differ in their approach to hate speech regulation, and the balance between protecting free expression and preventing harm varies among countries. For example, some European countries have laws that criminalize hate speech, whereas the United States, in interpreting the First Amendment, generally provides more protection to even offensive speech.
To present arguments in favor of limiting hate speech, you can discuss the potential harm it causes, point to international human rights standards and anti-discrimination laws, and refer to cases where hate speech has been linked to incitements of violence or discrimination.
Remember, this explanation provides an overview of commonly discussed perspectives on speech deserving more or less constitutional protection. Opinions on the matter may vary, and it is important to consider the legal and cultural context in which the question is framed.