USAssa ei ole vihapuhelakeja. Miten se on tuossa mielessä konkreettisesti huonompi maa?

Onko siellä enemmän pahastuneita ihmisiä vai mikä on ero ja voiko laeista olla jopa haittaa, niin kuin sielläpäin katsotaan. Siellä saa puhua vapaasti eikä tarvitse miettiä, että vihaako jumala oikeasti homoja vai ei, niin kuin Westboro baptist church väittää. Ei tarvitse miettiä sanamuotoja, niin kuin Hakkaraisen tapauksessa. Mikä on siis se oikea vahinko? Paksumpi nahka ei sellainen ole eikä valtiovallan tehtävä ole varmistaa, ettei kukaan vaan pahastu.

Also a case could be made that the whole thing is identity politics when it's not so much what is said, but by whom. Filosofi Timo Airaksinenkin väittää oikein lehdessä, ettei enemmistöä vastaan voi edes olla rasistinen (ja feministit toistavat tuota mantraa) eli onko tämä yksi huomioitava aspekti kun mietitään kuka syyllistyy vihapuheeseen ja rasismiin.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.

Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[9]

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.