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
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.
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 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... ...
When discussing hate speech one has to address fighting words. Fighting words are words that the Supreme Court believes that even the mere utterance of them will inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. The court also believes these words are unnecessary for anyone to use, and that even if they were not used someone could still express their ideas.
...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not.
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.
Society consists of many different sociological groups. These groups involve people of diverse races, religions, and more. Unfortunately, hate crimes happen when groups become angry or frustrated towards each other. These groups are formed mostly during times of economic struggle or even social change. Hate groups continue to be a problem in our society. A group believes that the reason for a specific problem is only the fault of another racial, religious, or other group. The most common forms of crime in our society are due to hatred. Hate crimes are defined as a crime motivated by hatred, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, disability, and/or sexual orientation. Plenty of hate crimes happen due to the fact that someone is different from someone else.
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...
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.
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.
...ith these differencesAs Barbara McQuade said, “A hate crime is different than a simple assault because it is an attack on not just one individual victim, but an attack on everyone who shares a particular characteristic.”As presented in this paper, hate crime isn’t new but isn’t talked about too much either. These crimes are not taken as serious as they should be. Attention was brought to what hate crime is, who commits them, at what ages they are being committed, how often they occur, which states have the most and which people are targeted the most. Hate crimes are done every day and it isn’t taken seriously. It can happen to anyone in this country at any time. After reading this paper there should be enough information gathered to try and avoid these crimes. It is also shown that participating to try and put an end to these crimes would be very helpful to society.
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.
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.
Now what exactly is free speech? There is a simple answer to that, free speech is basically to voice out your opinions, it’s the freedom to say what you like.(Mill,J.S 2003) On the contrary to this, hate speech is anything that is said to someone which could be taken as an offence by an individual.