In order to reduce the astonishing number of hate crimes in the United States, the Federal Government should restrict hate speech, and the expressions of hateful ideas, in all its forms, in all places, both public and private. However, it is imperative that hate speech be defined first. Contrary to some opinions, it is possible to accurately define hate speech, because hate speech does not actually have many elusive forms. Hate speech includes fighting words as defined in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, and words that incite violence or aggression towards a specific group based on sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, or political orientation by the provision of information that is not valid against all members of the group. The wording must encourage a violent or physically aggressive action based on false information. For example, if one encourages violence towards those who worship Satan because all those who worship Satan sacrifice humans, he should be prosecuted under a hate speech code, because there is no way to prove that the information is applicable to all those in the group. However, if the same person encouraged political action, he would be perfectly justified, even if the information were still false. The basic reasoning behind hate speech codes is that they will protect people from violence. At the same time, to stop the infringement upon the first amendment, no organization should place any restrictions on public or private hate speech, including the expression of hateful ideas. This is because hate speech can not be defined well enough for use in the law. One can not define the intentions of hate speech because every situation is different, and speeches may be misinterpreted in such a way that the benign ... ... middle of paper ... ...el. "Gays Unfairly Target Dr. Laura." USA Today. 13 June 2000. PROQUEST. South Glens Falls High School Lib., South Glens Falls, NY. 7 Dec. 2000. Murray, S. Douglas, JD Villanova University School of Law. "The Demise of Campus Speech Codes." Western State University Law Review. 1997. "On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes." University of Delaware Library. South Glens Falls High School Lib., South Glens Falls, NY. 7 Dec. 2000. Strossen, Nadine, Professor of Law. "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal." Duke Law Journal. June 1990: 554. "Web Co.'s Combat Anti-Semitism." Associated Press Online. 9 Aug. 2000. South Glens Falls High School Lib., South Glens Falls, NY. 7 Dec. 2000. White, Jack E. "Imus 'N' Andy." Time. 22 May 2000. South Glens Falls High School Lib., South Glens Falls, NY. 7 Dec. 2000.
Have you ever had a crime committed against you? In today’s society we are faced with crime all around us. There are crimes committed out of rage, revenge, jealousy, love, greed, etc; but there is another type of crime, or one could say act of violence, called hate crimes. Have you ever thought maybe that crime was committed against just because of your racial background, or religious beliefs? Throughout this country’s history, hate crimes have taken place, either by known groups who hate and, most commonly, individuals that are inspired by hate. Not until recently have the people of this country ever wanted to pass a law that would punish the guilty to an even higher extent because the crime was committed out of hate. There are two sides to every issue. Whether or not the issue is valid or if it is an unrealistic concept created by the media or by the federal government, then, in my opinion, passing a law of this type is totally unrealistic. It is almost impossible to prove that a crime is committed out of a bias hate. I feel that a law that punishes hate crimes should not be passed.
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.
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.
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
Hate crimes are done too frequently in the United States. Although we have laws that supposedly regulate them, many people still feel the need to commit acts of violence on people that are different than them. Many of these crimes originate with some sort of hate speech. People get ideas from other people, passed down from previous generations.
The term hate crime first appeared in the late 1980’s as a way of understanding a racial incident in the Howard Beach section of New York City, in which a black man was killed while attempting to evade a violent mob of white teenagers, shouting racial epithets. Although widely used by the federal government of the United States, the media, and researchers in the field, the term is somewhat misleading because it suggests incorrectly that hatred is invariably a distinguishing characteristic of this type of crime. While it is true that many hate crimes involve intense animosity toward the victim, many others do not. Conversely, many crimes involving hatred between the offender and the victim are not ‘hate crimes’ in the sense intended here. For example an assault that arises out of a dispute between two white, male co-workers who compete for a promotion might involve intense hatred, even though it is not based on any racial or religious differences... ...
Stanley Fish states in his essay “The Free-Speech Follies”, “The modern American version of crying wolf is crying First Amendment” (496). The First Amendment is made up of five basic freedoms given to the United States citizens that consist of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to hold a peaceful protest, freedom of press, and the right to protest. Within the Constitution there are no words that state the rights include for society to speak rudely to, or about, others. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains, “Slander consists of orally making and libel consists of publishing false statements that are damaging to the reputation of another” (1). People are allowed to have their own beliefs and opinions; however, they should not
Many hate groups in the United States use the first amendment as a shield to protect themselves from the law, they are bad examples to our following generations because they are trying to recruit more members and change their way of think, these hate groups also commit a lot of crimes against those people that they think are different. That is why in the United States, many Americans are against all of the hate groups and they think that these hate groups should not be allow to exist. We all know that if the U.S. Government decide to ban them, they may be inn silent for many years, but we can count on the fact that they are there. They are “The Invisible Empire” and will always be the dark side to American History.
When the topic of hate and bias crime legislation is brought up two justifications commonly come to mind. In her article entitled “Why Liberals Should Hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation” author Heidi M. Hurd discusses the courts and states views that those who commit hate and bias crimes ought to be more severely punished. She takes into consideration both sides of the argument to determine the validity of each but ultimately ends the article in hopes to have persuaded the reader into understanding and agreeing with her view that laws concerning the punishment of hate and bias laws should not be codified. Hate crime is described as a violent, prejudice crime that occurs when a victim is targeted because of their membership in a specific group. The types of crime can vary from physical assault, vandalism, harassment or hate speech. Throughout the article Hurd tried to defend her view and explain why there should be no difference of punishment for similar crimes no matter the reason behind it. Her reason behind her article came from the law that President Obama signed in 2009 declaring that crimes committed with hatred or prejudice should have more sever punishments. While the court has their own views to justify their reasoning behind such decisions, in the article Hurd brings up points and facts to prove the wrongfulness of creating such a law. However, though Hurd has made her views clear in the following essay I will discuss reasons why the penalties are justifiable, why they should receive the same degree of punishment, less punishment and my personal view on the topic.
There are both state and federal laws that prohibit hate crimes, but proving an assailant committed a crime in prejudice is very difficult. Any type of crime can call for some form of punishment, from fines and short prison stays for misdemeanors to long term imprisonment for felonies. Once it has been reviled that an accused willfully committed an offense, proof must be given that indicates the crime was influenced by prejudice against a specific characteristic in order to show that it was also a hate crime. When this can be proven, the harshness of the crime automatically increases. People often wonder why hate crime punishment is harsher than for crimes that are not motivated by any type of bias. The basic reason for this is that most crimes are directed at an individual, but hate crimes are against an entire community. A burglar who breaks into a random home does so for personal gain, and usually doesn’t even know who lives in the home they are invading. Conversely, a person who chooses a victim based on a particular bias is singling out a ch...
Challenges to hate crime laws have been based on the First Amendment of the Constitution the right to free speech. The first major Supreme Court ruling on this issue was R. A. V. v. City...
Hate Crime in the United States of America THESIS: In this research paper, information will be given on hate crime in the United States of America. It’s best to know about these types of crimes before it’s too late because it’s rarely reported or spoken about but does occur on regular bases. Hate crime didn't come about until the early 1980's. It's sad how these types of crimes still occur so many years later; there are innocent people who are attacked simply because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. Based on the articles, hate crime in the USA is very common and the chances to be a victim are high enough. Hate crimes are ignorant and pointless, they need to be stopped.Done to many different people in many different waysHate crimes are biased motivated, they're based on ethnicity, gender, language, nationality, physical appearance and sexual orientation. Hate crimes have various ways of being committed. They can be done either by physically assaulting another individual, doing damage to their property, bullying them, harassing them, verbal abusing or insulting someone. Hate crimes occur because of people who are prejudice and ignorant who can’t understand that there are differences among people. A victim of hate crime is more than likely to be attacked by another individual because of their race. The most common type of hate crimes that are committed is racially motivated. While gay people are also attacked often also, hate crimes based on sexual orientation come in second. In 2012 and 2013 there were 42,236 reported hate crimes. 85% were race hate crimes, 10% were sexual orientation, 4% were disability and religion hate crimes and 1% transgender. The FBI has found that most hate crime offenders are white at 70%...
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 for centuries, racial discrimination was rampant in the 19th and 20th century, but mostly in the south; many segregation laws were created at the time ‘’that banned African Americans from voting, attending certain schools, and using public accommodations. ’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014)
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.
In America, hate crimes are a rising problem. Statistics show that a hate crime is committed every hour. A cross is burned every week. Eight blacks, three whites, three gays, three Jews, and one Latino become victims every day. Today, America prides itself on being a tolerant country. Through legislation including affirmative action and movements against racism, we see ourselves as a country offering equal opportunities to all. This statement, however, is slightly biased. Contrary to popular belief, everything is not wonderful in the land of the free and home of the brave. Many live in fear of being persecuted because of who they are naturally. The United States needs to find a way to combat these crimes, mainly through introducing tougher laws regarding hate crimes.