Truth or Consequences, NM
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I'm saying the first is in place to protect your rights, and everyone's rights to freedom of speech, whether we like what is said or not. Even Trump's freedom of speech is protected, even though we might not like what he says. It would take an act of congress to repeal or amend the first amendment. Americans have practiced hate speech for over 200 years, and most don't like it, but we deal with it in different ways.
You can teach your child not to use hate speech, but that doesn't mean when the child grows up that the child won't do what you've taught. There's only one obligation that a parent can practice, it's called a moral obligation, but sometimes it slips through the cracks, and sometimes people are easily influenced by another person or a group of people.
"The basic principle that the Supreme Court has wrestled with under the Free Speech Clause is the principle of not punishing speech because of its message or its viewpoint. That in itself is a violation of the principles of the Constitution. But, for example, in certain areas like obscenity or child pornography or incitement to violence, the Court has made exceptions based on the dangers that those impose. Hate speech has not been considered to be part of any of those categories in and of itself. ... Under the First Amendment, you really have to have another law regulating conduct that's broken. So, you know, if you are beating somebody up, obviously you can be charged with a hate crime if you're doing that with the intention of targeting them because of their race. But if you're walking beside that person on the sidewalk with a sign or handing out flyers that reflect hatred toward that race, that is protected."