Almost all Americans today have heard of the First Amendment and its protection of free speech. This protection allows a free exchange of ideas among the members of society. Without it, Americans would not be able to voice their criticisms against anything without having a fear of being arrested. However, in the past, the government has limited this fundamental right several times. During World War I, Charles Schenck passed out fliers criticizing the national draft. He was arrested, and the Supreme Court decided that his arrest was acceptable because his actions posed 'clear and present danger'. Other limits exist on libel and slander. Now, with these limits enacted in the past, and with a growing multicultural society in America, a debate on a certain issue has slowly increased. Should hate speech be protected as free speech, or should it be suppressed? Hate speech is defined as "an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like" (“Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition” definitions.uslegal.com). Throughout history, American society has been intertwined with such speech directed towards several groups, such as African Americans, Asians, and other immigrant groups. In 1969, Clarence Brandenburg, a leader of the KKK in Ohio, was arrested under Ohio law for uttering hate speech and committing hateful actions. However, the Supreme Court, in a landmark decision named Brandenburg v. Ohio, upheld Brandenburg's right to free speech ("Brandenburg v. Ohio." kids.laws.com) In doing so, the Supreme Court avoided the restriction of hate speech in society. The judges made a wise decision, since the limitation of hate speech carries w... ... middle of paper ... ...ork Times. The New York Times, 27 June 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Rauch (Brookings), Jonathan. "A New Argument for Hate-speech Laws? Um … No." Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. Turley, Jonathan. "Shut up and Play Nice: How the Western World Is Limiting Free Speech." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Jefferson, Thomas. "First Inaugural Address In the Washington, D.C." Speech. 1801 Presidential Inauguration. Washington, D.C. 4 Mar. 1801. Bartleby.com. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. "Federal Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech in Portland’s Medians." Aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Barnes, Robert. "The Supreme Court Confronts the Line between Free Speech and Security with Protester’s Case." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 30 Nov. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Jefferson, T. ( 1801, March 4). Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address. Retrieved 2008, from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp
Alonso, Karen. Schenck v. United States: restrictions on free speech. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 1999. Print.
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.
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
Toby, Jackson. “Racial Profiling Doesn’t Prove Cops are Racist.” Wall Street Journal (March 1999). N. pag. Online. AT&T Worldnet. Internet. 30 Nov 2000. Available: www.frontpagemag.com/archives/racerelations/toby3-11-99.htm
Lawrence, J.M. “Judge Ok’s Suites vs. Crooked Feds.” Boston Herald 18 Sept. 2004. 6 April 2005
Sullum, Jacob. "When policing becomes harassment: why the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program is unconstitutional." Reason July 2013: 8. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
"The Supreme Court and Racial Profiling." National Motorists Association, n. d. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. .
Rose, Carol. "American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 08 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
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).
Feingold, Stanley. "Hate Crime Legislation Muzzles Free Speech." The National Law Journal 15 (July 1, 1993): 6, 16
Richey, Warren. "Free Speech Outside Supreme Court: Ban on Protests in Plaza Struck..." Christian Science Monitor. 12 Jun. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Challenges to hate crime laws have been based on the First Amendment of the Constitution the right to free speech. The first major Supreme Court ruling on this issue was R. A. V. v. City...
"What is freedom of Speech? Without the opportunity to outrage, it stops to exist" said Salman Rushdie. This statement impeccably sums up the endless level-headed discussion about the right to speak freely and abhor discourse. Freedom of discourse and articulation has a place with the gathering of crucial human privileges of each individual on this planet. Nowadays we are seeing the rising worries about hate speech, like if it is secured by this fundamental human right or if the right to speak freely ought to have a few confinements. Given the way that each individual is permitted to express considerations and convictions, forbidding the negative remarks would, actually, deny his or her fundamental rights i.e. the right to speak freely.