The Line Between Protected Speech and Hate Speech
The debate over the parameters for protected speech versus hate speech has been confusing and controversial in many countries, including the United States. The rights of free expression are enshrined in the Constitution and numerous laws have extended such protections to various categories of individuals. However, as intolerance, hatred and discrimination have become more prevalent within pockets of society, questions regarding an individual’s right to open expressions of bigotry or hate have come under scrutiny.
To understand where the line should be drawn between protected speech and hate speech it is important to examine how these definitions apply in practice and what forms these expressions may take. In recent cases like GitHub firing an employee over Nazi references on a private chat room, there is heightened attention to how companies address such issues when they arise at work. This article will discuss some key considerations for determining when speech crosses into being considered a form of hate or discrimination and could face repercussions.
Definition of Protected Speech
Protected speech is a term used to refer to any kind of expression which cannot be legally prohibited or punished by the government. This includes otherwise offensive speech, such as hate speech. Protected speech is typically protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and it is the courts’ job to decide if the speech falls under this legal definition.
In this article, we will examine the line between what is considered protected speech and what is considered hate speech.
First Amendment of the US Constitution
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech, assembly, and expression. Therefore, speech is protected if it does not include hate speech such as attacks against individuals or groups based on race, religion, or ethnicity. Although there are exceptions to this rule, generally speaking most speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Protected speech is any type of expression that conveys a message that is not considered illegal under the law. This type of expression includes verbal and written communication and any type of art or entertainment that conveys an idea or viewpoint. For example, protected speech may range from an individual expressing their opinion to a political group advocating for change in government policies. It also includes works like films, books and plays and extends even to symbolic acts like burning a flag or wearing armbands in protest.
However, some forms of expression are not legally protected by the First Amendment and can be prosecuted legally under certain circumstances.
- Libel and slander which involve false information about individuals or groups.
- Incitement which involves encouraging violence of any kind.
- Fighting words which are language likely to spawn immediate violence.
- Obscenity which contains offensive sexual material.
- True threats (which require intent) contain serious expressions of harm intended for another person.
- Child pornography which involves minors being coerced into expressing obscene images.
- Cyber stalking involving persistent harassment, threatening behaviour online.
- Copyright infringement in terms of music piracy.
- Finally, fraud which involves deceitful misstatements intended solely for monetary gain.
Protected Speech vs. Hate Speech
Protected Speech is any expression protected by the first amendment and/or other state or federal laws. These may include statements of opinion, political expression, protest speeches, artistic expression, and academic research. Examples of protected speech include religious opinions, criticism of government officials or organisations, and criticism of policies. In addition, in the United States, protected speech includes the right to sexual expression and exploratory speech.
Hate Speech is an unprotected category of speech which includes derogatory comments about race or ethnicity, disability or physical appearance, gender or sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has held that some forms of hate speech are not considered “unprotected” and may not be criminalised due to its potential for violence from those who likely disagree with it. The Court has also held that while the First Amendment allows people to say offensive things—including words advocating unpopular views—it does not permit words intended to incite illegal activities such as violence against a particular group or individual.
Though protected speech generally offers more protection than hate speech due to its expressive nature and educational value in helping people better understand social issues, both forms have merits in different contexts for different purposes. Therefore, individuals must understand which form applies when considering a particular situation.
GitHub Still Won’t Explain if it Fired Someone for Saying ‘Nazi
A disturbing case of censorship was seen in 2018 when GitHub let go of one of its developers. The developer in question had written ‘Nazi’ in a Slack conversation, resulting in his prompt firing by the company. The incident brought up a powerful debate between protected speech and hate speech. It was seen as an act of censorship on the part of GitHub and the company was criticised for its decision. This case study will go into detail about the incident and its implications.
Background of the Case
In 2018, GitHub faced controversy after it fired one of its developers for controversial speech about the company. The developer, who was using a pseudonym “vivek_hc”, posted on his blog accusing GitHub of allowing Islamophobia in the workplace and giving preferential treatment to white male employees. He also used the phrase “Nazi sympathisers” about GitHub’s contracting practices.
GitHub responded by firing the developer and deleting their posts within 24 hours of publication. This led to backlash from employees and other observers who questioned why a private company had censored someone’s right to free speech in this way. Some saw it as an effort by GitHub leadership to stifle political discourse on their platform. In contrast, others argued that such language constituted hate speech—and could potentially play into radicalization efforts at a time when anti-semitism was on the rise globally.
The issue led to public outcry online, though co-founder Chris Wanstrath refused to comment on why they chose to fire the employee. It further led to questions about where businesses should draw the line between protected speech and hate speech in the workplace—a debate continues today, two years later.
GitHub’s Response to the Firing
In response to the incident, GitHub CEO Nat Friedman tweeted about the decision and stated: “We’re aware of a recent situation involving an employee. We have taken appropriate action in response to this incident, which we believe is in the best interest of our company, employees, and community. Unfortunately, we are not able to provide specifics for privacy reasons.”
GitHub subsequently released an official statement on its blog reassuring its users that hate speech or threatening behaviour will not be tolerated enforcing policies around offensive language – specifying that it has a right but not an obligation to act on complaints and suggestions provided by our customers and users.
It reiterated that it conducted a thorough investigation into the incident before making any decisions regarding the firing of the developer in question. It concluded with a commitment to transparency, stating: “At GitHub, we are vigilant in denouncing discrimination and racism whenever they manifest themselves in any form. We remain committed to creating a safe environment for developers everywhere.”
GitHub recently fired one of its employees for using the term ‘Nazi’ in a message left on an internal discussion platform. The case has raised a few questions about the line between protected speech and hate speech. It also raises questions about employers’ rights to regulate employee conduct on their platforms.
This analysis will examine the implications of this case and the associated legal considerations:
What Constitutes Hate Speech?
Hate speech is a form of discrimination or antagonism toward a person or group of people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, and other categories. Hate speech can take various forms including hate incidents (e.g., verbal harassment or vandalism), propaganda (e.g., flyers blaming an entire group for an action), and acts of physical violence.
At its most extreme extreme, hate speech can also lead to mass displacement and genocide – two examples include the Holocaust during World War II and the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. But it isn’t just extreme cases that qualify as hate speech: even under most nations’ laws, words that express prejudice or hate against a targeted minority are considered unlawful forms of speech in most places around the world.
However, it is important to note that the line between protected and hate speech is sometimes blurred. For instance, many countries have laws protecting freedom of expression which could seem to contradict laws banning hate speech. Additionally, there are many terms used to refer to minority groups which may not be as recognizable or disrespected at first glance compared to more hateful phrases such as “Nazis” which was mentioned in the introductory article summary above regarding GitHub’s case involving an employee taking legal action after being terminated from their position for saying this term online.
Companies need to have policies governing appropriate online behaviour for employees and customers alike to minimise any potential disputes caused by controversial language used on company servers and websites monitored by them (i.e., GitHub). Government organisations should also strive towards creating clear definitions regarding what counts as “hate speech” while respecting human rights such as freedom of expression– ultimately allowing society to work towards reducing discrimination through public education initiatives instead of censorship alone.
The Role of the Employer in Regulating Speech
Employers can play a key role in determining what speech is acceptable and tolerated in the workplace. However, when it comes to hate speech, employers may grapple with questions concerning which language is permissible and how to balance their incentives as employers with their employee’s right to express certain beliefs.
The First Amendment protects the right of employees and employers alike to express their beliefs without fear of criminal liability or governmental censorship. However, this protection does not extend to expression that creates a hostile work environment or is discriminatory or harassing. Employers should create and sustain fair policies that prohibit discrimination and harassment in all forms, including language used in the workplace. Employers may choose to establish rules that set boundaries for employee behaviour related to speech, such as no racial epithets or name-calling, no slurs directed against religion or placing limits on the amount of time spent discussing personal politics during work hours.
Moreover, when an employee wears clothing or other items associated with hate groups, displays hateful symbols on their desk, directly expresses hateful sentiments towards others at work (e.g., through social media postings), it can be up to the employer based on their particular policies regarding protected classes whether they will take disciplinary action against that individual like they did in GitHub’s case where they fired an engineer for using Nazi imagery while tweeting about LGBT Pride Month celebration.
Finally, it should be noted that even though there are critical exceptions created by labour laws which protect workers from discrimination based on race, religious views or sexual orientation among other protected classes yet employees do not have an unfettered right under federal law or state law as any expression connected with hate which potentially creates a hostile work environment can result into potential discipline by employer exercising its authority at times even leading up firing of employee if behaviour persists – as seen in GitHub case when engineer was fired for repeatedly referring to Nazis when tweeting about LGBT pride month celebration affair despite initially getting away twice with describing ‘Nazi imagery’ during those tweets.
tags = it service management company, internet hosting service, distributed version control of Git plus access, bug tracking, software feature requests, task management, continuous integration, report github nazis slack capitolschiffer theverge, github nazis slack us capitolschiffer theverge, report github nazis capitolschiffer theverge, report github nazis us capitolschiffer theverge, github employees protest, protesting the firing of a Jewish colleague, slack message