“If the goal is to promote peaceful coexistence among human beings enjoying equal dignity and respect, isn’t allowing everyone his or her say a reflection of that respect?” (David Cole). Freedom of speech, as it is protected under the first amendment, is perhaps the most important component of a democratic society. Without it people cannot speak their minds, cannot point out injustices being done by the government. Without it people are silenced. The right to speak up stretches across many topics, but not all of them are the kindest. Hate speech is a protected form of free speech, which is controversial amongst many because of its inherently hateful nature. In fact, some people argue it should not be protected under the first amendment at all. If hate speech is to be made illegal however, it would lead to the censorship of society as whole, and would be reminiscent of the days of Hitler and Mussolini. People were shot down simply for stating an opinion. Additionally, there is no need to ban hate speech as it would be unconstitutional, and if it does lead to hate crimes those hate crimes can be dealt with using pre existing laws. As the saying goes, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Before one can start to argue against or for the protection of hate speech, it must be defined. What exactly is hate speech? A question the proves all too blurry to be answered by a single person. By dictionary definition it is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. However, dictionary definitions often times prove to be problematic. For example, some things offend some members of a certain race, color, religi... ... middle of paper ... ...ech. Doing so would only lead to the censorship of ideas and people, the violation of the first amendment, and is unnecessary due to the fact that there are already laws in place to deal with its effects. After all, is it not better to instill acceptance of all groups into the minds of children rather than to tackle it later? Prevention is more important than persecution, and as Wendell Holmes, Jr. so eloquently says, “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” Until it is possible to fully accept all points of views- regardless of what moral codes and compasses they break- society will never be truly free. So drop the compass, for something must be broken in order to be repaired.
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.
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
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.
And even though the First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech, including such hate speech, there are limits. The federal and all state governments, including public colleges and universities and private schools that accept federal financial aid, cannot unnecessarily regulate speech, with the following exceptions: “obscenity, figh...
Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful freedoms and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of speech is perhaps our most cherished, and one of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all endure to ensure our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.
How much we valuse the right of free speech is out to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life promises the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Where racist, sexist and homphobic speech is concerned, I believe that more speech - not less - is the best revenge. This is particualrly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. They can organize effectively to encounter bad attitudes, possibly to change them, and imitate togetherness against the forces of intolerance.
Limiting freedom of speech is not a good idea because the pros outweighs the cons. Censorship would not work because there isn’t an individual,
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
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...
As a nation we need to take a page from the Rogerian style of argument and be less judgmental of, and be willing to except another’s point of view as valid, even if one we do not agree with it. The fore fathers of the Unites States wrote the Bill of Rights with our country’s future in mind. The first amendment in the Unites States’ Bill of Rights is our freedom of religion, speech, press, and to peaceably assemble. By including freedom of speech and religion in the Bill of Rights one can assume that our fore fathers felt that all opinions were valid because they gave us the freedom to express and practice them openly. Therefore our current government officials should follow the path that our fore fathers has laid for us and listen to one another with empathy, without judgment and communicate effectively in order to run our country successfully. The day when our government officials realize that compromise is an effective tool we will all win.
From the readings assigned this past week. The main point that can be taken from them is the history of how colleges and universities have tried to censor hate speech. The court’s ruling most of these policies unconstitutional. The courts for the most part said that most of the policies were vague. My question is what is too vague for a policy dealing with hate speech? The authors try to explain it in the book, but I feel they did not give a complete answer or completely avoided to give a solid answer.
Is Censorship of “Hate Speech” Necessary? Current Issues: Civil Liberties defines hate speech as speech that degrades “a person’s ethnicity, language, religion, political views, or socioeconomic class” (Roleff, 27). Jeremy Waldron, a professor at New York University, wrote his book, The Harm in Hate Speech, on the thesis that hate speech “undermines the equal dignity of individual members of vulnerable minorities” (Mchangma). Waldron, who wants to see societies ban hate speech, defines hate speech too narrowly, since he defines hate speech as speech that is primarily harmful to minorities.
There are many advantages as to why the government should ban hate speech. One of the biggest reasons that people give is that it could create a safe zone that protects all individuals, no matter their gender, race, or ethnicity, from harm and violence. Harm and violence are two of the main leading effects of hate speech. A lot of times people get so worked up about sharing their opinion that they feel violence is the only way to get their point across. To help expand on the idea of creating a safe space from hate speech, the textbook briefly touches on