The First Amendment does not permit society to require that speakers have socially useful messages -- and that is why most hate speech must be protected. But the First Amendment should not protect hate speech containing no social message at all. And as a matter of common sense and experience, there will be times when it is fair so to characterize the speech at issue. Picture a vulgar or racist word etched on the door of the bathroom stall. Imagine that it is only one word, and that the word stands alone. For the moment, do not imagine any particular word, but think, for the sake of argument, only of the function of this generic vulgarity. It is not part of any larger debate, political commentary, or philosophical insight. Assume that it does not even offer itself as human. No interest in self-fulfillment seems plausible. While it would not be fair to say that this word contains no intellectual component -- for the reader will recognize it, "process" it mentally, perhaps for a fleeting moment conjure uthe physical imagery it conveys -- it is clearly beneath the threshold definition of "issues of public concern" necessary to trigger full-scale First Amendment protection. Although the statement involves language, it requires no more thought than the ability to spell. It states no fact, offers no opinion, proposes no transaction, attempts no persuasion. It contains no humorous punch line, no melodic rhythm, no color or shape or texture that might pass as art of entertainment. It offers only hate for hate's sake, with no mental gloss other than the feeble minimum intellectual current necessary to power the use of words.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe