Hatespeech
Hate Speech and the People who use it
Hate speech; is this the type of speech that the First Amendment protects? Should this type of speech be defended? If this type of speech is censored on college campuses, have the students lost their right to the First Amendment? What kind of damage does hate speech cause physical and emotional? Who does hate speech affect?
Is hate speech protected by the first amendment? According to Charles R.
Lawrence III, it is not. “When racist speech takes the form of face-to-face insults, catcalls, or other assaultive speech aimed at an individual or small group of persons, it falls directly within the “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protection.”(Goshgarian 382)
As I started to read Hate Speech on Campus, the first sentence is a quote from the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The two words that are stressed from this quote is no law. Obviously the writers of the constitution were trying to protect the future generation from losing power to their freedom of speech. But, because of the vagrant misuse of speech that we have in the world today, has everyone looking for a way to censor it.
Should this type of speech be defended? No I do not think that this type of speech should be defended, because hate speech allows ignorance of future generations it also ensures that peace will never be an option. People who hate other because of their race, religion, or gender will never understand what life is all about. They will pass on their hatred to their unknowledgeable children. Hate speech must be controlled. I do not mean that people shouldn’t express themselves but maybe they could do it where it will cause no harm to...
... middle of paper ...
...r children of the harm that they can inflict upon one another than maybe we have a chance to live in a peaceful world. But as we all know that will never happen because the ignorant people will also be teaching their children with the belief that they hold dear to their hearts. I am a firm believer that people should believe in themselves, but when what they believe in, is to inflict damage upon someone who has done nothing to hurt them in any way is wrong and those people should be punished according to the law. Hate crime and speech should be punished accordingly.
Maybe we do not need to censor the speech of others just control the damage it causes and judge them for the damage they have caused.
Works Cited
Goshgarian, Gary Exploring Language, Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc., 1998
Marcus, Laurence R. Fighting Words, Praeger Publishers, 1996
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
"The words of the first amendment are simple and majestic: 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.' The proposed constitutional amendment would undermine that fundamental liberty."
In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.
One key to the first amendment of the United states constitution is the right to free speech. Freedom of speech is what separates America than other countries around the world that forbid freedom of speech rights. Freedom of speech has been in our constitution since the year 1791. When James Madison “the father of the constitution” wrote the bill of rights he saw potential and that it would make the country more freedom filled than other countries. The land of the free is what the United States is nicknamed and it 's because of our rights to express ourselves as freely as we desire.
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
“Fag burns.” “DIE.” These slurs were scrawled outside the GLBT office at N.C. State last October. Should the instigator be indicted for hate speech in addition to vandalism? Was this expression an act of hate speech? Or was it free speech? Is the message he conveyed protected under the First Amendment? Two and a half centuries ago, the nation’s forefathers drafted the Constitution of the United States. The aim of the Constitution is to protect the values that this nation was built upon. This document, arguably one of the nation’s most important, encompasses values such as democracy, equality, religious tolerance, as well as the freedom of speech.
Some people don’t find anything wrong with verbally abusing another human. Some world leaders have participated in hate speech, hate crimes, or genocide. Hitler is known for his merciless killing of minorities, mostly Jews, in Eastern Europe. The founder of the United States, Christopher Columbus, killed many Indians because he felt he was superior to them. Hate speech obviously leads to hate crimes and keeps humans separated. Also when following the laws correctly, hate speech is not allowed. These are all reasons why I am against hate speech.
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most important rights that we have in this country. Our forefathers knew this and acknowledged this in our great constitution which protects our rights as citizens in America. Censorship is a complete contradiction to this concept that has helped make America the greatest country in the world. If we do not stand up for our rights for free speech, someday it may be taken away all together. Everyday there are people out there trying to ban and censor things from Americans, things that as an American you have the right to view. Censorship must be stopped at all costs.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
In conclusion, hate crimes should be punished no differently than other crimes. The effects are the same. The crime is basically the same. The family experiences the same trauma and the punishment should be the same.
Hate crimes are not a new concept for society, because hate crimes have always been around. While the study of hate crimes and the laws that have been passed because of hate crimes is relatively new, hate crimes have always been around. Hate crimes were committed as far back as the 1800’s and even back to The Civil War. Hate crimes are prevalent in society today just like they were in the past; because whether the crimes are aimed towards Muslims, the gay community, or any other minority group; they are fueled by something that every person has come into contact with- prejudice. Prejudice is defined as a preconceived thought or opinion about someone. While prejudice can be positive, in the concept of hate crimes they are negative feelings, thoughts, or opinions that are aimed towards a certain religious, ethnic, race, or even sexual orientation group. The typical definition of hate crime is that a crime has been committed by a majority member against a minority member simply because the victim was a minority. However, as of recent the definition has been expanded to allow for any crime committed by bias towards the victim’s social group such as anti-gay or anti-lesbian. Hate crimes are an extreme, potential effect due to prejudice and discrimination towards someone based on ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. These crimes are committed against an individual or a group of individuals based solely on the fact that they are part of a group that the offender doesn’t approve of whether it is because they are a different race or following an alternative lifestyle. While the hate crimes are not something that is new in society because prejudice has always been around, the concept of a bias-crime and the legal precedent that it ha...
There are many who believe hate crime should be punished more severely since it ‘’has the potential to cause greater harm.’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014) Hate crimes, like racial discrimination, have unfortunately been a part of this country
The First Amendment is known as the most protected civil liberty that protects our right to freedom of speech. There has been much controversy regarding hate speech and laws that prohibit it. These problems have risen from generation to generation and have been protested whether freedom of speech is guaranteed. According to our text book, By the People, hate speech is defined as “hostile statements based on someone’s personal characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.” Hate speech is a topic of issue for many people and their right’s, so the question is often proposed whether hate speech should be banned by government.