On the other hand, Weinstein proposes that "bigoted ideas should be refuted, not censored" (Mante, 2015, p.785) Since the First Amendment guarantees every individual the right to express any point of view, even those that the vast majority of Americans find offensive, disturbing, or even morally repugnant” (Mantel, 2015, p. 785). So he hypothesizes that the First Amendment becoming more limited by laws regulating hate speech would likely undermine the vigorous protection of public speech” that the First Amendment protects (Mantel, 2015, p. 785). SCOTUS would be difficult to “articulate a principle that excludes hate speech from First Amendment protection” and does not result in the censorship of other ideas (Mantel, 2015, p. 785). Because hate speech does not cause people to “discriminate against minorities” (Mantel, 2015,.). He then goes on to explain his reasoning as to why he believes regulating hate speech should not be considered a positive idea. For example, he believes the regulations would likely prevent public discussion of important issues. He then supports his position by addressing the negative effects of regulations on a company's ability to do so