Hate speech is a difficult nuance of today’s society, being that it has many nuances of its’ own. The term “hate speech” has an extremely “grey area” adjacent to it because of the fact that it is so ambiguous; it is not easily definable. There are many factors contributing to the definitive understanding of hate speech: what exactly does it entail, who is affected, how does it differ from hateful speech, and what does the First Amendment have to say about it? Regardless of how nebulous it may be, there is without a doubt a need for understanding as there are numerous cases of hate speech inflicting hurt on those affected. Defining hate speech is a difficult thing to do because of that fact that there are many factors the definition …show more content…
It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (TheWhiteHouse.gov). What the First Amendment allows us, as civilians, to do is to: practice any religion of our choosing, have freedom in what we say, have the ability to rally peacefully, and to petition the government. There are many different sectors under each of these factors that the court is able to restrict. Under the “freedom of speech,” there are five restrictions: “speech that incites illegal activity and subversive speech, fighting words, obscenity and pornography, commercial speech, and symbolic expression” (Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 2007). Although hate speech is not defined under these annotations under the first amendment, “the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech that merely offends, or hurts the feelings of, another person—without eliciting a more dramatic response—is protected by the First Amendment” (legaldictionary.com, 2015). What is not protected under the First Amendment is speech that is directed at an individual or group of people based on an observable difference that is used to inflict
However, hate crimes can be deemed as a form of prejudice. It is a form of prejudice that is fixed upon a group of people built on their culture, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious preference, or any other essential characteristic. We must keep in mind, that anytime when there is diversity amongst groups of individuals who come into the presence of one another, there is a greater risk or the opportunity for tension or a conflict to emerge. Without a doubt, this primes violence. No matter if the alleged misconduct in question is assault, theft, verbal abuse or even murder, the enthusiasm that stems from such, is grounded on the concept of hate for a set of individuals that is declared or considered as appearing different in some sort of way ("History of Hate Crime - Crime Museum", 2017).
Hate speech directs people to commit hateful crimes. The difference between hate crimes and regular crimes is that hate crimes are committed to a person because of his/her differences. Some examples of differences would be their gender, race, hair color, body shape, intelligence, sexual orientation, etc. Hate speech doesn’t have to be direct talking. Hate speech can now be down on the Internet or through magazine; and more people are using the Internet to publicize their vile beliefs. In the last five years, the number of hate crimes that have been reported to the FBI has increased by 3,743 (FBI statistics). That means that 11,690 hate crimes were reported in 2000 in only 48 states and not all police forces released their data. Imagine how many other hate crimes were committed that weren’t even reported to the police. Ethnic and racial violence or tension has decreased in Europe due to newly implemented hate speech laws (ABC News).
The American Heritage Dictionary defines hate as intense dislike or animosity. However, defining hate as the basis for a crime is not as easy without possibly jeopardizing constitutional rights in the process. Hate crime laws generally add enhanced punishments to existing statues. A hate crime law seeks to treat a crime, if it can be demonstrated that the offense was a hate crime differently from the way it would be treated under ordinary criminal law. Since the 1980s, the problem of hate crimes has attracted increasing research attention, especially from criminologists and law enforcement personnel who have focused primarily on documenting the prevalence of the problem and formulation criminal justice responses to it. Lawmakers have passed legislation to encourage data collection and attach enhanced penalties to hate crimes at both state and federal levels.
This paper will address some of the issues surrounding hate speech and its regulation. I will explain both Andrew Altman and Jonathan Rauch’s positions in the first two sections. The third section will be on what Altman might say to Rauch’s opposite views. I will then discuss my view that hate speech should never be regulated under any circumstance especially in the name of protecting someone’s psychology, feelings, or insecurities like Altman prescribes. In the end, I will conclude that we should not agree with Altman despite his well intentioned moral convictions to push for hate speech regulation. Although hate speech is a horrible act, people must learn to overcome and persevere through difficult situations and not leave it to the law to protect their feelings and insecurities.
Hate crimes are terrible things that are becoming more and more common in America because people don’t like the way they look or feel. The purpose of the “ Debate: What is a Hate Crime” is to teach people of a crime that is becoming quite important in the society.
What is meant by the term “hate crime”? Discuss with reference to at least one type of hate crime, paying particular attention to the social and cultural context in which some identities become targets.
Hate speech, what is it? The definition of hate speech, according to Mari J. Matsuda, author of 'Assaultive Speech and Academic Freedom, is '?(a word of group of words) of which is to wound and degrade by asserting the inherent inferiority of a group? (151). In my own words hate speech is a humiliation and demeaning slur of words specifically used to disgrace a person for their race, religion, or sexual habits. There is now a controversy if hate speech should be regulated on college campuses or not. I have read a few articles with the author being either for or against regulating hate speech. I believe we should regulate hate speech on college campuses.
Based on their definition, hate crimes can be understood as criminal activities fueled either in whole or partly by negative attitudes and opinions toward a group of individuals. This is primarily because the offenses incorporate a particular aspect of the identity of the victim such as race and religion. Notably, these criminal activities are not simply biases but they incorporate dangerous actions like physical assault fueled by the biases (“The Psychology of Hate Crimes”, 2010). Generally, hate crimes differ from other violent offenses because of their impact on the immediate target and communities that the victim belongs to. Therefore, hate crimes are not only conducted to harm the victim but also affect the community that the victim is a member of.
The first amendment famously known as the “Freedom of Speech” had always defended by the United States Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. However, with the right of to voice our own opinion has led to some people inflicting hate to different group of people in a form of a hate speech. Hate speeches have always existed ever since the introduction of the first amendment in the United States constitution. They usually come into hating against American politicians based on their actions that they don’t agree. However, some individuals believe that hate speeches should be regulated. To address the both sides of the topic, the CQ reporter obtained a statement from Michel Rosenfeld and a response from James Weinstein to how they see the
What constitutes a hate crime? What makes a hate crime different from a crime or are they one in the same. If you believe that there is a different between a hate crime and a crime, then how can we legislate hate crimes fairly and without bias on a consist basis? When it comes to hate crimes their seems to be more questions then answers and there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty within the law itself. Hate crime laws should no longer exist in are justice system because every violent crime involves an element of hate and it is impossible to prove a person’s motive or hate in the court of law.
Historically some hate speeches have contained fighting words, but they are view by the court as a separate entity. Fighting words are often classified as having absolutely no social value, and are not protected by the first amendment. In this regard I think that hate speech and fighting words are very analogous to indecent and obscene material. While indecent material might be frowned upon it is constitutionally protected, as where obscene material (also classified as having no social value) is not. This distinction was first made in the early 1940s in the Chaplinsky case.
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.
Hate speech is a very important topic, especially in the United States. Many do not know the thin line between criticisms and hate speech. One way criticism and hate speech differ is the intention of hate speech, if it was used purposely for “the stirring of hatred and hostility t...
A hate crime is a crime motivated by several reasons that include religion, sexual orientation, race, nationality, gender etc. It typically involves physical violence, intimidation, threats and other means against the individual that is being targeted. It is a crime against the person and it can have a devastating impact on the victim. Several argue that hate crimes should be punished more severely. However, it is not a crime to hate someone or something if it does not lead to some sort of criminal offense.
Freedom of speech has been the core principle we have fought long and hard for centuries to achieve. It is the fundamental reason why the founders seperated from England and started their own colonies on the idea of becoming free. In recent times the idea of freedom of speech has been put into question as there has been incidents for years of racism, religious differences and discriminatory abuse. What comes into question is what exactly is your freedom of speech rights and what should be and should not be said in the public eye. The problems that we see arising in today’s society is discrimination and abuse against one another for opposing views and what exactly should your freedom of speech rights entail to as many hate crimes have occurred