IntroductionSince the first free speech case came before the Supreme Court in 1919, there has been debate over whether it is an absolute or limited right persisted. As the Court attempts to grasp the meaning of the First Amendment and its free speech clause, it creates numerous tests and qualifications for First Amendment protection. Many discussions around exceptions to free speech concern, at least in part, hateful and offensive speech. The paradox that poisons this argument is that speech cannot be qualified without encroaching on certain rights, but speech cannot be absolute without threatening the peace that rights are supposed to protect. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Cohen v. California and FCC v. Pacifica. Foundation, among other things, highlights the key exceptions the Court considers in an offensive speech case. Two of the three cases above granted exceptions to the protection of free speech, thereby allowing compliance with regulatory laws. On the other hand, Snyder v. Phelps, Virginia v. Black, and RAV v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, represent the Court's view regarding hate speech that allowed no exception to the First Amendment. speech should be an absolute right can be easily found in the slippery slope argument or the heckler's veto, among others. Both of these notions that exceptions will undoubtedly lead to the absence of true freedom of expression are neither rare nor improbable. Matsuda and Lawrence (1993) assert that the theory that freedom of expression is an absolute right is “ahistorical and acontextual” (p. 134). However, the need for an absolute interpretation of freedom of speech is embodied in middle of paper... his indecent monologue as obscene or offensive speech. Monologue inherently meets the requirements of “speech” under the First Amendment. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether or not the First Amendment grants the FCC the authority to punish Pacifica for broadcasting indecent content. Although monologue does not fall within any of the three main exemptions determined by the First Amendment, the Court still permits regulation due to the context and content of the speech. Judging the context and content of speech arises from the restrictions of time, place, and manner that are often placed on this type of speech. According to the majority opinion, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it "results in significant evils which Congress has the right to prevent" (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978, p... 745).