"Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing
codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that
such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words
or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly,
hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as
their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with
reference to physical health or mental health. There has been an
increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on
socio-economic class in the United States, same goes to regional slurs
and comments in Europe. But for many North Americans and western
Europeans, hate speech has become unacceptable (at least in public),
immoral and sometimes, it is taboo to use certain words or discuss
certain subjects they fear may be offensive or illegal. In some
contexts it may also be offensive or illegal to challenge the rights
of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria.
In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibitions
on the use of hate speech have been written into the bylaws of some
governmental and non-governmental institutions, such as public
universities, trade unions and other organizations (see below), though
the use of speech codes in public universities in the United States is
illegal, because public universities, as agents of the State, are
Constitutionally restricted from regulating or penalizing speech based
on content. Its use is also frowned upon by many publishing houses,
broadcasting organizations and newspaper groups. However, most
business corporations adapted strict rules and regulations concerning
verbal conduct at the workplace. These are similar to anti-hate speech
laws and any employee caught in a violation of anti-hate speech codes
may be dismissed. Many schools and universities have speech codes
restricting some free speech. Hate speech codes are rules intended to
ensure an atmosphere free from harassment and intimidation, conducive
to a learning environment. Many academics have criticised these
policies, arguing they are an impediment for free and uncensored
discussion on controversial topics. Moreover, it is argued that the
very concept of harassment is often misused and frequently cheapened,
interpreting criticism (of a faith, opinion, or lifestyle) as
something traumatic and harmful. Opponents of hate speech codes
maintain that debate is essential to searching for the truth, and hate
speech codes interfere with this mandate by silencing discussion from
the very start (becoming censorship). They maintain that "harassment"
should only be interpreted as a direct personal threat. They also
argue that students should be confronted with perspectives they can
find repulsive, as it will help strengthen their own arguments and
ultimately achieve a more sturdy, well-rounded understanding of the
issue.
One organization active in opposing campus speech codes is the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE.
The landmark case of in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568
(1942) gave rise to a public discussion on fighting words, see also
the 1918 case of Schenck."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
