This thesis examines the tension between the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the harmful impact of hate speech on college campuses. As incidents of targeted, discriminatory rhetoric rise in academic settings, the need to reevaluate what constitutes protected speech has become increasingly urgent. Through legal analysis, including case law such as Brandenburg v. Ohio and Schenck v. United States, this paper argues that the Supreme Court must distinguish between constitutionally protected speech and harmful hate speech. The thesis uses contemporary case studies from college campuses across the country. It includes firsthand accounts from the University at Albany to demonstrate how hate speech, particularly racially and religiously motivated rhetoric, has compromised students’ emotional, psychological, and physical safety. It critiques the inaction of the Supreme Court and compares American policy to Canada’s precedent in R. v. Keegstra, suggesting that legal definitions and limitations on hate speech are both necessary and possible. The paper concludes by calling for the Supreme Court to modernize its interpretation of the First Amendment to ensure that free speech no longer enables discrimination and harassment in academic spaces
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.