Final answer:
The protection of non-threatening hate speech varies by jurisdiction, with the United States generally providing broad protections under the First Amendment except for threats and violence, while countries like Germany impose legal limits to curb hate speech to protect public order and dignity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether hate speech that is non-threatening (such as racist, sexist, or anti-immigrant statements) should be legally protected is a complex legal and ethical issue. In the United States, while the First Amendment provides broad protections for speech, there are several key restrictions. For instance, hate speech that involves violence, intimidation, and direct threats is not protected. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which includes protections based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disabilities, illustrates the country's efforts to combat hate crimes rather than mere speech. Conversely, in Germany, the approach is different as certain forms of speech, such as Holocaust denial, are illegal, showing a narrower interpretation of free speech protections.
Comparing international approaches, like those of the United States and Germany, highlights the different balances between protecting free expression and curbing hate speech. Germany's application of restrictions serves to protect public order and dignity, while the U.S. approach reaffirms a high value on freedom of expression, tolerating offensive speech to a greater extent, except when it crosses into threats or hate crime.