In 2011, SCOTUS heard arguments for the landmark case of Snyder v. Phelps. The case functioned as an exercise in defining First Amendment Constitutional rights and entailed a largely controversial assessment of hate speech. Today, it serves as a case study to a complex rhetorical conundrum and highlights the religious, ethical, and social implications that essentially affect constitutional free speech inquiry. Today’s publics are met with the challenge of understanding and acknowledging not just grand narratives but the emergence of smaller, highly diverse narratives. Through a philosophy of communication, this project serves to examine why hate speech as it relates to United States First Amendment rights is largely controversial and difficult to explicitly define. Using Snyder v. Phelps (2011), it then moves to examine the expression of personal narratives in appropriate contexts and the solution found within them during a postmodern moment.
Key words: hate speech, free speech, rhetoric, first amendment, Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
|
