But harms to dignity, he contends, involve more than the giving of offense. They involve undermining a public good, which he identifies as the “implicit assurance” extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed, even by his polemical opponents, as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society.

Professor Lisa Feldman Barrett of Northeastern University took a scientific approach to understanding how hate speech affects the human brain. She explained that “if words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then certain types of speech can be a form of violence.”

Hate speech is violent by nature and can cause direct and indirect physical and psychological harm.

Words hurt – and infringe on our right to safety

Did the Founding Fathers think that racism should be included in the Constitution? It’s fairly self-evident that the answer is no.

In a well-ordered society … everyone can enjoy a certain assurance as they go about their business. They know that when they leave home in the morning, they can count on not being discriminated against or humiliated or terrorized…they can face social interactions without the elemental risks that such interaction would involve if one could not count on others to act justly.

Waldron argues that freedom of speech in the United States is so absolute, both in law and in public opinion, that we lack meaningful regulation against speech intended to demean or vilify minority groups—what we casually refer to as “hate speech.”

He argues that hate speech is an “environmental” problem that pollutes the atmosphere of security and dignity that society should provide to all its members:

The typical answer is that judges must balance benefits and harms.

Some can't grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we don't also restrict hate speech.

Despite the 1st Amendment—I tell my students—local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech.

disagreeing, respectfully.

Hate speech “attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability."

There are so many other ways of exploring a culture, ethnicity, race and religion without ever have to insult it.

The first amendment of the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,"

Hate speech should not fall under "freedom of speech" in the constitution.

There is no excuse for hurtful language, even if you boil it down to a mere "expression" of your feelings. Your words are cruel and express a lack of consideration to others.

Facebook and other social networking websites should not tolerate hate speech and, in the absence of a government mandate, adopt a European model of expunging offensive material.

“Last year, after the French government objected to the hash tag “#unbonjuif” — intended to inspire hateful riffs on the theme “a good Jew ...” — Twitter blocked a handful of the resulting tweets in France, but only because they violated French law. Within days, the bulk of the tweets carrying the hashtag had turned from anti-Semitic to denunciations of anti-Semitism, confirming that the Twittersphere is perfectly capable of dealing with hate speech on its own, without heavy-handed intervention.”

Stricter regulation of Internet speech will not be popular with the libertarian-minded citizens of the United States, but it’s necessary.

“...given their tremendous size and importance as platforms for free speech, companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter shouldn’t try to be guardians of what Waldron calls a “well-ordered society”; instead, they should consider themselves the modern version of Oliver Wendell Holmes’s fractious marketplace of ideas — democratic spaces where all values, including civility norms, are always open for debate.”

For the past few years speech has moved online, leading to fierce debates about its regulation.