UC Law professor discusses US Supreme Court’s views on hate speech

In 2025, incidents of hate speech in Cincinnati demonstrate a fine but distinct line between free speech and criminal threats, reports CityBeat.

The Cincinnati Police Department's Intelligence Unit is investigating the origin of racist flyers containing Ku Klux Klan propaganda found recently in several Cincinnati neighborhoods — Madisonville, College Hill and South Cumminsville.

The flyers came after a viral brawl in Cincinnati made national headlines in July. Videos of a physical altercation near Elm and Fourth Streets in Cincinnati’s Downtown neighborhood quickly blew up online, according to CityBeat.

Videos of the alleged attacks prompted widespread criticism, in part thanks to racist dog-whistle commentary from far-right conservative commentators like Libs of TikTok, Charlie Kirk and X owner-operator Elon Musk, reports CityBeat.

Six people have been charged in connection with the fight. A family member of a defendant told reporters following a court hearing on July 30 that he was spat on and called racial slurs in the lead-up to the fight, reports CityBeat.

Cincinnati has experienced numerous displays of white supremacist hate speech. In February, a group of masked neo-Nazis displayed swastika flags on a highway overpass near the historically Black Lincoln Heights neighborhood, reports CityBeat. Hamilton County prosecutor Connie Pillich said her office was investigating the neo-Nazis involved in that incident, but no charges have been filed at this time. 

CityBeat spoke with Ryan Thoreson, an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. He explained that hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.

“I think, as a general matter, the Supreme Court has been very permissive toward hateful speech that is likely to offend and even to deeply offend the general public or particular communities," Thoreson told CityBeat in a previous story.

“A lot of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has been particularly wary of what it calls a hecklers veto, this idea that if an audience strongly disagrees with a message, that they should be able to override the speaker's right to convey that message, and that applies even when the speech is particularly upsetting to the audience who hears it,” Thoreson adds.

Read the entire CityBeat story online.

Learn more about UC Law’s Ryan Thoreson online.

Featured top image courtesy of Istock.