Should government control, even ban, speech that “incites religious and ethnic hatred”? Many governments in Europe have answered in the affirmative: they have not only criminalized hate speech, they are actively prosecuting - and occasionally convicting--artists, curators, and writers accused of stirring anti-Muslim or anti-Christian hatred.

In the U.S. things are different. The drafters of the U.S. constitution, haunted by fresh memories of religious intolerance in the Old World, were uncomfortable with the idea of governmental control of expression, whether political or religious. Thus, the First Amendment protects, among other types of expression, speech that might offend particular social groups.

The only exception is when hateful speech constitutes a direct threat. The creators of the Nuremberg Files, an anti-abortion website, for instance, claimed that their site, which featured a list of names and addresses of physicians (the names of those who were killed by anti-abortion zealots had a line struck through them), was entitled to free speech protections. Nevertheless, in 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the website’s contents constituted illegal “threats,” not free speech.

Most initiatives to repress “hateful” or “offensive” material in the United States do no call for the wholesale withdrawal of First Amendment protections. Instead, they demand respect and sensitivity to the feelings of religious or ethnic groups. Calls to remove books from curricula and school libraries because of offensive words are almost daily occurrences somewhere in the country. Bias and sensitivity reviews are routine in the production of textbooks as well as in standardized testing.

However, censoring disturbing or even offensive speech, especially in art and literature, often violates not only the intentions or spirit of the speaker or writer, but suggests a perhaps willful lack of understanding of language itself: the ambiguity of words and images, as well as the role of context in determining meaning. What some as an assault on religious symbols or historical sacred cows, others regards as a criticism of the commercial uses of faith, a multicultural expansion of religious iconology, or an inquiry into how consumer society deals with the traumas of the past. Some words and images may hurt—no matter how they are used—because they are deeply rooted in the scars and unhealed wounds of history and social discord. Banning them, unfortunately, is not likely to erase the pain of historical reality.

See also political correctness.

» NCAC & Other Groups Oppose Academic Bill of Rights for Higher Education February 10, 2005
Letter to Senators in opposition of SB 24:
"The bill prohibits teachers from "persistently introducing controversial matter" (emphasis added), but does not define "persistently" or "controversial. Nor is it clear on what basis one would conclude that controversial matter "serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose." Indeed, the bill could chill spontaneous classroom discussion on any subject that might be considered controversial, if the topic is not on the day's curriculum, as well as courses on "hot topics" in current affairs, like hate speech or pornography, mideast politics, and the justifications for war in Iraq.

» January 26, 2004 - Roll of Thunder Challenged in Seminole County, Florida A parent, who has not read the award-winning book, objected because it includes the word "nigger." Although her child was immediately given an alternative reading assignment, the parent has continued to press for the book's removal.
Related:» Read NCAC's Letter to the School Board

Issue #89 Spring 2003
"As we go to press, the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Black that states may ban cross-burning if the intent is to intimidate, although part of the Virginia statute was found unconstitutional because it presumed an intent to intimidate from the mere act of cross-burning, even if only meant as symbolic expression and not a true threat."

» Free Speech Groups Express Concern Over Student Reaction to Controversial Ad New York, March 26, 2001
The ad, titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks-and Racist, Too" was written and paid for by conservative activist David Horowitz. Reaction by some students, who regard the ad as racist or "hate speech," have resulted in the destruction of thousands of newspapers by students at Brown University, formal apologies for running the ad at University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis and Arizona State, and protests at Duke University, University of Wisconsin and several others. Many campus newspapers have simply refused to run the ad at all.

» Issue #80: Seeking New Ways to Fight Censorship by Joan E. Bertin
Winter 2000-2001
The Free Expression Policy Project will focus on the rationales for restricting speech-concerns about violence, racism, sexism, protecting minors online, etc. For example,?"Hate speech" codes reflect a legitimate concern for equity, but are often vague and provide a justification for censoring art and literature, and suppress speech that is valuable to the groups they are intended to protect.

INTERNET FILTERS - A PUBLIC POLICY REPORT
Marjorie Heins & Christina Cho
Free Expression Policy Project
National Coalition Against Censorship
Fall, 2001 » Description of internet filters and types of filtering categories including hate speech

INTERNET FILTERS A PUBLIC POLICY REPORT
APPENDIX B: Blocking Categories for Different Filters Defined

Bess: Blocking Categories
Hate/Discrimination: "[s]ites that specifically target a group of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity in a hateful, derogatory manner. The language of these sites often includes racial slurs and is insulting, abusive, and sometimes violent".

Cyber Patrol: Blocking Categories
Intolerance: "[p]ictures or text advocating prejudice or discrimination against any race, color, national origin, religion, disability or handicap, gender, or sexual orientation. Any picture or text that elevates one group over another. Also includes intolerant jokes or slurs";
Sites advocating hate and/or intolerance: "topics such as anti-religious or racist material".

FamilyClick
Hate Groups: "[s]ites that advocate intolerance or hatred of a person or group of people".

I-Gear: Blocking Categories
Intolerance: "[s]ites advocating intolerance or hatred of a person or group of people".

SafeSurf: Ratings Key
SS~~007. Intolerance

» SmartFilter: Pre-Version 3.0 Blocking Categories Hate Speech: "any sort of propaganda that would encourage the oppression of a specific group of individuals. This includes such things as derogatory speech against women, minorities, and the disabled."

» Nelson v. Streeter, 16 F.3d 145 (7th Cir. 1994).
Visual Art case with reference to hate speech codes.
"Even the most extreme advocates of "hate speech" codes, designed to shield groups perceived as vulnerable from offensive, hurtful, and wounding speech, do not argue that a public official should be immune from offensive, hurtful, and wounding criticism merely because he is a member of a minority group. "Transvestite" is not a racial epithet. While Alderman Rush testified that Nelson's painting was one more effort to depict the black male as "impotent," many is the white official who has been vilified for his sexual activities or preferences, real or conjectured."

» The Cyber-Library: Legal and Policy Issues Facing Public Libraries in the High-Tech Era Researched and written by Elisabeth Werby for the National Coalition Against Censorship

Addresses concerns about children's' access to internet sites containing "hate speech".