Why should we protect the First Amendment, Hate speech? It causes people to suffer so why defend this?

Because there is no hate speech in it.

There are two issues here that are getting mixed up.

First, the 1st Amendment does *not* cover all speech. The only speech that is absolute is political speech. Speech that results in the defamation of a person's character is punishable under civil law. Speech that is used reckless such as yelling fire in a crowded place, is not permitted.. Threatening a person and causing fear is considered an assault.

Hate speech is technically called "Intimidation in the 1st degree" and is considered a crime. It is usually tacked on to another crime. It is determined by the circumstances of the crime. The reason hate speech is considered a separate charge is because of the psychological effects it has on the individual or the community that suffered from it. For example, a deliberate fire at a synagogue is considered bad and the people who go to the synagogue may be upset at its lost. But an arson that is set and graffiti written on the sidewalk that says, "ha ha you "f"ing Jews, burn like your ancestors" is worst because of the additional psychological trauma hence the additional charge.

So, the 1st Amendment does not apply in this instance and the speech is not protected. Rather it is prosecuted as it should be.

Words cannot cause suffering. Actions cause suffering. All speech is covered unless it is

immediately inflammatory. Like you can yell fire in an open field, but you cannot yell fire in a

crowded theatre.

You have to be adult enough to realize everyone is entitled to free speech, even idiots.

All speech must be protected because pretty much anything can be taken as hate speech.

Well, the problem with "hate" is that there's not specific meaning but disliking a topic or people or whatever is in the existence of anyone's mind. Shoot, I hate a lot of things like paying taxes.

I should have that right to speak about my hate to anyone who wants to hear and or agree, regardless what it is. In the 18th Century there were citizens in a British colony who dislike the manner they were being governed. They had hate speaks and even had a Tea party, but should they not have that right do speak for what they believe is wrong all because someone says it's hate speak because they do not agree with it.

The cause of suffering is not words but the actions of people who cause such situations. All because someone says: "Hey, let's not give jobs to Black people" does not mean another should do that very thing! And then blame the person who said it. WTH?

Take responsibility to your own actions and quit blaming people for what you think they did to you.

You should know that I HATE people who blames for all their woes. =(

But that might be just me.

Freedom of speech has its faults. It also has many, many benefits. Putting up with hate speech is a price I am willing to pay to defend my right to express any beliefs I may have.

The problem is: Do you trust the people who will decide what is - and is not - 'hate speech?'

How do you prevent political agendas from being used to more strictly enforce the rules against 'hate speech' against dissenting viewpoints?

The First Amendment Constitutionally grants a person the right to say what they want or need to say. Even if some don't agree or find it offensive, it is their right to voice an opinion.

I'm pretty sure the first amendment isn't the right to hate speach, but honestly i'm not american so i don't know off hand

Hate speech=Thought crime

well it protects against free speach unless you are encouraging violence. If you hate speach against me i can do the same back to you