Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Diversity in community
Diversity in community
Diversity in community
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In order to reach an appropriate answer to the question of how we can properly indict perpetrators of hate speech, we must first establish a list of criteria for our solution. Criteria are “standards against which to evaluate the various options before (we) can begin to evaluate (them).” In other words, we use criteria as yardsticks by which to measure progress made towards our goal. It is important to establish such standards to ensure that the solution reached helps us clarify what effect we want our solution to have and is in accordance with the individual and shared ideals of the group members.. The following criteria were discussed and agreed upon our group to be considered when formulating our final solution: 1) The solution must not …show more content…
“Freedom of speech” is a pillar of American democracy. The solution must not detract from that liberty in any way beyond the enforcement of hate speech protection laws/practices. 3) The solution must be enforceable. The solution must be practically enforceable, meaning that it has a clear set procedures for responding to different types of hate speech and penalties that correlate. 4) The solution must be able to be universally applied in all environments. The solution must be applicable in all settings, casual and professional, public and private. 5) The solution must protect against all different types of hate speech. The solution must provide a tangible level of protection against hate speech of all levels. A “tangible level of protection” can be qualified as measures taken to both protect the victim physically and psychologically ex. increased police force, mandated therapy for abuser, optional therapy for victim. 6) The solution defines “Hate Speech” clearly and unambiguously. Provides a clear definition of the term to be used as a point of reference when deciding if something does or does not qualify as hate speech. 7) The solution must be appropriate, reasonable and practicable. The solution must be realistic in terms of application and feasibility, and must accurately address the current concerns about hate speech
The thesis of this book is that slavery, racism and discrimination should be set aside and tough penalties laid for those who practice it. This can reduce it by a great percentage and each generations.
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.
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.
Free speech. Affirmative action. Political correctness. These three things all have at least one key thing common and that one thing can be summed up as this: To you, the reader; to me, the writer; and to anyone and everyone you talk to about those three things, they will have a different meaning with a different story with a different reason for them being defined that way. The discussion cannot end simply with our own stories, but begin with those stories and transcend into something new with being exposed to different ideas and viewpoints that may or may not match our own. D’souza, Taylor, Robbins and all other authors mentioned in this piece can help everyone to grow in their personal definitions of free speech, affirmative action and political correctness.
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
"Hate-Crime Laws." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News
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.
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.
While many of us, including me, find some aspects of racial discrimination morally repulsive, we must at the same time recognize that freedom of association should be our overreaching value. Valuing freedom of association does not mean that we are helpless in registering revulsion to various forms of discrimination. There are private social sanctions that can be exercised similar to those exercised when people behave impolitely, use vulgar language, or disrespect elders. But the largest contribution to racial harmony is for us to keep government limited to its legitimate or moral functions; namely, preventing force, fraud, theft and initiation of violence.
Lawrence’s reasons, “Carefully drafted university regulations would bar the use of words as assault weapons…”(67). The education system holds primarily the younger generations who one day will run this country. We want to encourage a nation that sticks to the values that are expected and continue to have an integrated society. I agree with Lawrence that regulations need to be added, but why stop at just the education system? If an enforcement is going to be made on what can be said verbally through hate speech in one area, I believe that it should be present in all aspects such as the work field, public places, and media. There is not a way to make a strong government ban on the use of every form of hate speech but if larger industries start declaring it unacceptable it will set an example for society to follow. No one should feel as if they do not belong in a certain area or place due to their ethnicity or race. The most current situation could be Americans discriminating against Muslims and relating them to ISIS, this may not seem like segregation but it is discriminating and separating someone due to assumptions about them due to their background that they cannot change. Slowly but surely, if one American steps up and takes action our nation has the power to change hate speech forever and encourage a peaceful
In this world today, hate is becoming increasingly more abundant, especially as it concerns race. Whether it be an unarmed black man shot by a white police officer or the use of racial slurs towards someone, it seems like racism is all around us. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, it shows a little girl named Scout using racial slurs. Racism is so culturally accepted in the town that it’s okay to use racial slurs such as the N-Word that even Atticus, a lawyer representing a black man falsely accused of rape, uses it a couple of times. Earlier this year, the Ku Klux Klan, a group of white supremacists, held a violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and proved that racism isn’t a thing of the past. In order to combat racism, groups of like-minded individuals with a common goal of making the world a more accepting place must come together to stand up
Lawrence, Charles R., III. "The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
Today we have looked at the problem known as hate crimes and the varied causes which keep it in existence. We have also discussed some solutions to this act of hate.
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)
These are 5 arguments out of the 19 arguments which were taken into account in Eric Heinze’s book. These were few arguments against hate speech. We can notice that there are a few misconceptions about the topic freedom of speech and what the limitations are.