Hateful & Non-hateful Speech

And when we cannot make "clear" distinctions between "hateful" and "non-hateful" speech, but, nevertheless, are trying to suppress it, we have no right to call ourselves a free society. Confronted with cases where local governments have tried to restrict or accommodate these various kinds of vocal and body speech, the Court has developed the principle that government can place reasonable regulations on when, where, and how speakers may express themselves. The representatives are the "best" citizens the Supreme Court Free speech means free speech for popular ideas as well as for unpopular ones. The bureaucrats (representatives of the people) cannot be the "average" citizens. You have to look at the circumstances even though the 1st amendment is straight forward. The 1st Amendment protects writing, demonstrating, parading, leafleting, and certain forms of symbolic expression. it? We have no right to call ourselves a free society then.

Ruling: I was fairly close on how the court would rule. In my opinion, it looks like the courts are trying to balance both, freedom of speech, freedom of individuals and the fear of an inflammatory speech. The freedom of speech becomes a subject to reasonable time, manner, and place regulations, as long as these regulations do not inflict harm on society.