When racial/sexual harassment became rampant in the U.S. in 1980s, many colleges and universities along with local governments adopted regulations which proscribed hate speech and other fotms of hatred. In 1992, however, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance banning "fighting words" that insulted or provoked violence "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." In R.A.V.v.City of St. Paul, the Court stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminated against unpopular topics. Critics of R.A.V. showed deep concern for the logic of the Court and others provided their reasoning for upholding strictly framed regulations. In this Article, I intend to present outline of the debate on hate speech regulations in the United States. In Chapter II, I overview the anti-regulation argument by presenting R.A.V. and then point out the flaw in its logic. In Chapter III, I turn to the pro-regulation argument and discuss how the proponents of the regulations solves the problem of content/viewpoint discrimination. I then present the harm caused by hate speech, and finally analyze hate speech regulations under the values of the Freedom of Speech.