The definition of free speech and the protections that it deserves vary from individual to individual and from group to group. Many people base their different beliefs on speech on the provisions of the First Amendment. The wording of the Amendment is very clear, stating that Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech; however, later amendments and different interpretations can cause confusion about the freedom. Somewhere along the line the right to free speech also became the right to never be offended, enticed, or caused to act by other's words. Racist and hate speech seem to cause the most controversy. The words are used with the intention of hurting and belittling, but do the words cause justified actions? Many people believe that they do, and that expressions of hate should not be protected. I disagree. Language is a very powerful thing, and because of that it is appropriate for enticing and offensive phrases to be protected.
             The guarantee of free speech has never been very clear. Free Speech can be broadly defined as the right to say whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want to. There are many reasonable limitations on this freedom, such as the law against yelling Fire! in a crowded public place, requiring permits for protests and marches, and preventing people from enticing others to do harm. However, in many situations these lines can be blurred, allowing for protection against words and phrases which are detrimental to the process of communication. An example of this can be found in the law's view on racist and hate speech. Words that are used intentionally to belittle a
             person or race cause hurt, but I do not believe that people should be stopped from using them because of the potential for hurting feelings.
             The view on whether these hurtful words translate into punishable actions can depend on many factors. A main theme in the argument is whether or not words can trans...