The Supreme Court building in Washington. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
by Ken Oath
Jun 24, 2017
The Supreme Court building in Washington. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed: