From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These freedoms gave citizens the right to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution guarantees citizens the courage to express their opinion on something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is: how far are citizens willing to extend the meaning of these freedoms? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. In contrast, many other people believe that civil liberties are necessary tools for fighting for their constitutional rights. Critics believe that American citizens take advantage of civil liberties by supporting limits on free speech. They believe that the degradation of humanity is inherent in unregulated speech. For example, according to Delgado and Stefancic, a larger or more authoritative person may use hate speech to threaten and physically intimidate those who are less significant (qtd. in Martin 49). Free speech can also be used to demoralize ethnic and religious minorities. Author Liam Martin points out that if you want to say that a minority is inferior, you have to prove it scientifically (45-46). Discouraging minorities can lead to retaliation, which can result in crimes or threatening situations. “Then, the response becomes internalized, as it must be, because responding will be useless or even dangerous. In fact, many hate crimes have taken place when the victim did just that: responded to the attacker and paid with his money." life” (qtd. in Martin 49). Therefore, critics believe that Americans do not take into account the harm they could cause to people and support limitations on free speech. However, supporters of f...... middle of paper ......n Espejo. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 131-141. Print.Katskee, Richard B. “Federally Supported Faith-Based Charities Should Not Promote Religion.” Opposing points of view: civil liberties. Ed. Spejo Romano. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 139-144. Print.Martin, Liam. “Hate speech should be regulated.” Opposing points of view: civil liberties. Ed. Spejo Romano. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 42-53. Print.Scalia, Antonin. “Posting the Ten Commandments in public areas is constitutional.” Opposing points of view: civil liberties. Ed. Spejo Romano. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 145-155. Print.Turner, Michael. “Technology should not be blamed for all privacy threats.” Opposing points of view: civil liberties. Ed. Spejo Romano. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 181-188. Press.