NONE actually, according to the US Constitution, the government has no right to deny anybody, even racists, their freedom of expressing their beliefs.
There is no federal law in the US that directly prohibits hate speech; it is protected under the First Amendment. However, some states have laws pertaining to hate crimes, which address acts motivated by bias. States without specific hate speech laws include Delaware, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
As of 1930, there were no state prohibition laws in Mississippi and Louisiana. These states did not enact their own prohibition laws in the 1920s, unlike the majority of other states in the US.
The topmost rung of the ladder of laws in the US is the US Constitution. It serves as the supreme law of the land and all other laws, including federal and state laws, must be in compliance with it.
Switchblades are legal in some capacity in 44 states in the US. However, some states may have specific restrictions on possession, sale, or carry of these knives. It is important to check the specific laws and regulations of the state you are in to ensure compliance.
Foreigners are subject to the laws of the country they are in. If a foreigner harasses a US citizen in the US, they can be held accountable under US laws. This could lead to legal consequences such as fines, imprisonment, and deportation.
Money lending laws vary by state in the US. While money lending is legal in most states, each state has its own regulations and licensing requirements for lenders. It's important to research the laws in your specific state to ensure compliance.
Yes, hate speech laws are apart of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The amendment prohibits the regulation of speech even hate speech.
Despite the "freedom of speech" allowed in the US there are such laws enacted as "hate crimes" and if the persons who constructed the snowman could be identified they could quite possibly be prosecutted for committing a hate crime.
because tyhe don't have freedom of speech
No, these laws are constitutional. If the Freedom of Speech in the United States were absolute, then yes, slander and defamation laws would be unconstitutional. However, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the Freedom of Speech to be limited in certain, very narrow ways and one of those ways is when Freedom of Speech has the effect to strongly injure a person's reputation, is effected for that purpose, and is not in a legitimate form of criticism.
The question assumes something false. Raghead is not an example of hate speech. To be hate speech, the name-calling has to be directed at a Diversity person, a protected subclass of federally protected classes. Protected subclass people (Diversity) are also referred to or labeled as historically disadvantaged, underprivileged, oppressed, underserved, disenfranchised, and victimized. Ragheads (aka arabians) are not Diversity people in the US, so any disparaging speech directed at them is not necessarily hate speech. However, if a arab also happens to be female, a LGBTQ, or disabled then a hate speech charge is a possibility.
In the US - none.
Stalking is illegal in all 50 states in the US.
The US state legislatures can pass laws applicable in their own states.
No, the government should not because it would take away the 1st admeadment
All US states have laws that relate to littering, disposing of waste material, etc.
There are two questions here:(1) How effective are Hate Speech Laws (such as those in Canada or some European Countries)?It depends entirely on how you define "effective".If your goal is to stifle speech or force racist and discriminatory people to hide their views in public, then, sure, hate speech laws are effective. If your goal is to actually minimize racism and improve societal discourse, then these laws actually have the reverse effect. When people feel that they cannot express their opinions through legitimate avenues, they become more radical and adversarial in their beliefs. It creates greater societal disunity and friction between groups.Additionally, hate speech is entirely up to the definition of the "persecuted". Given the incredibly extensive set of words and concepts that are viewed as hateful under the increasing ambit of political correctness, hate speech laws can serve to bar speech that is simply critical or questioning of the current left-wing worldview. It sets up the dangerous idea of using the law to bar the political opposition in a democracy.(2) Is it legally permissible to have Hate Speech Laws given the First Amendment to the US Constitution?No. The First Amendment, as currently understood, has extensive protections for free speech. The bans on speech only apply in cases where direct harm will result from the speech uttered, such as words that target a particular person for murder or words that will create pandemonium and result in deaths and injuries that way. Simply uttering hateful remarks with no intent to engender physical harm is protected. Additionally, words that anger a person to the point where they consider attacking the speaker (as opposed to a person listening to the speaker attacking a third party that the speaker argues should be attacked) is also protected speech.While it is illegal to ban hate speech, it is certainly legal to perform social acts of discrimination against those who say hateful and discriminatory things. Only the government is forbidden from restricting speech, not private individuals or corporations. For example, it is permissible to reprimand or fire an employee for hateful speech. Whether or not private censorship is desirable is a decision that each person needs to make on his own.
Some US states and foreign countries have laws permitting same-sex marriage. Some US states and foreign countries have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.