1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

I’m writing as a constituent to say that it is time for the U.S. to say no to hate speech. There is no legal definition of "hate speech" under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. However, hate speech can be defined as any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.  In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Yet, we are seeing recent examples of this incitement to criminal activity in bomb threats against public schools and infrastructure in Springfield, Ohio, as recent examples. Why can we not consider legislation to deal with these threats? Hate speech has become a regular feature of some campaign stump speeches. It’s unacceptable. Many countries around the world have laws against hate speech, including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Australia, India, and more. The UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, furthermore, which has been ratified by 182 countries, requires signatories to prohibit hate speech. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights calls on governments to prohibit advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. While specific definitions and enforcement vary, many democratic countries have determined that some restrictions on hate speech are compatible with freedom of expression protections. The United States remains an outlier among Western democracies in its broad protections for hate speech under the First Amendment. Recent criminal acts of violence inspired by hate speech are demonstrating the importance of the U.S. joining other the civilized democracies that have legislated reasonable restrictions on hate speech consistent with freedom of expression protections. It is not only possible to do this but essential we do so. Thanks.