Congress shall make no law restricting the establishment or free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Exceptions and specifications to these freedoms may be created during subsequent court cases due to precedent.
The language of the First Amendment may seem straight forward, but behind it, there are many specifications to the extent of our freedoms. This may not be common knowledge, which is why I wanted to specify about exceptions in my version of the First Amendment. The United States operates under common law, which means that we determine cases by referring to a consistent methods to bring about consistent results in case rulings. The method in which we do this is called precedent. Precedent means that once a decision is made in a legal case, that decision becomes the standard for subsequent cases with similar circumstances. For example, in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, students were suspended after wearing arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The court ruled that there is freedom of speech in schools. However, they did specify that the speech cannot be disruptive to the learning environment. This case has become precedent and is referred to in many other case decisions.
Just like there is an exception to freedom of speech in school, there are exceptions to freedom of speech in all public places, some of the being defamation, libel, and "fighting words." However, there is no exception for hate speech. I originally wanted to make hate speech the focal point of my change to the amendment because I believe it is damaging to society. Under our Constitution, we are free to condemn whole groups of people based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. Fighting words would be the closest exception we have to hate speech, but it does not directly address race or religion, and is only unprotected if the words are said directly to someone and are likely to start an immediate fight. Limiting speech is a dangerous thing and there are many problems that arise. How do we distinguish hate speech? Where do we draw the line? How will the people react? How do we enforce this change on social media, where anonymous trolls reign free? There is no simple solution to these questions and I believe that is why we have not seen a hate speech exception enacted. There have been court cases that address this but thus far, none have resulted in hate speech becoming an exception to free speech. Although I wouldn't make a change to the amendment specifically addressing free speech, I believe drawing attention to exceptions could lead to future court cases involving hate speech.
The main reason I made the changes that I did to the First Amendment is to make people more aware that it does not guarantee absolute freedom when it comes to religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition. New decisions can be made that expand on the specifics of each of those rights.
