Free Speech: The Argument Against Hate Speech

1308 Words6 Pages
Flames, teargas, riots, city blocks destroyed, in consequence to a statement. In today's modern society, rude acts of communication known as hate speech, have become a controversial topic in America. Although hate speech is awful, it should be protected by the first amendment. Hate speech should be permitted because omitting such phrases would set a precedent for censorship, and repress the minority. Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech…show more content…
This is an example of the correlation hate speech has with being led into acts of violence. Another argument against hate speech is that it is cancerous in nature and will spread. Throughout the internet, hate speech Is being spread, causing widespread bullying of minorities - such as LGBTQ+ kids (Horne). A: This shows that free speech is the singular buffer for the hate speech to spread. Free speech is important to keep to protect the minority from the majority. This is because without free speech, beliefs that go against the status quo could be seen as unreasonable. This can be seen in the 1960s with civil rights ending segregation, and without free speech, these ideas would have been seen as a disgrace and quickly shunned (Stanley). This shows how in the past free speech helped people with major civil rights cases. The other point is that by censoring free speech, it won't stop hate speech at all and people will find other ways to spread the speech. This is because…show more content…
In America, as a first world country, people should feel safe with who they are. In the case of the Westboro Baptist church, they protested funeral after funeral of a veteran after veteran(Mears). This caused people morning at the funerals to feel unsafe when they are at their weakest. A consensus along the side of banning speech is that we are too civil to have hate speech. “this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society”(McElwee). Because of this person shouldn't be up to someone's genetics to decide how they should be treated modern society. The consensus from the other side is all speech should be protected, but only blatant offensive actions should be banned. Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected. “Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object”(mighty constitutional opposites). that is what separates the united states from a fascist country in that they protect all forms of speech. On the topic of hateful actions, only actions such as direct threats should be prosecuted and general hatred should be allowed. “The spectrum of hateful expression is broad, encompassing acts that are clearly illegal — such as firebombing a mosque —

More about Free Speech: The Argument Against Hate Speech

Open Document