More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on hate speech laws
Essays about the article the case of restricting hate speech
Essays about the article the case of restricting hate speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Feelings do not Trump Free Speech! Why is it, that people’s feelings seem to be more important than free speech in today’s society? Is “hate speech” not covered by free speech? this frightening trend present in society – the idea that words cause harm, and should therefore be limited. now, let us not misconstrue what I mean, I am not saying that “hate speech” (which is quite ambiguously defined as “speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.” , obviously I do not stand for this, however, how will (or should) this be prohibited? I believe that people that advocate for these hate speech laws, are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, …show more content…
Part of what makes hate speech a delicate issue is that it is a subjective term, even when it is part of a legal code, what is qualified as hate speech is somewhat open to interpretation. So how can we ban something when we cannot even agree on what it is? This ambiguity leads to an even more serious problem, when it is selectively enforced to silence controversial viewpoints, by labeling something as hate speech you can brand those who disagree with you as bigots and delegitimize any arguments that go against their political agenda. And at that point accusing someone of hate speech is the same as accusing someone of a “thought crime”, because no one wants to listen to the opinions of a racist, sexist, right? and as we see more and more, the fear of being branded as a modern day equivalence of heresy, which in turn creates an unhealthy climate of debate for everyone. Personally I would rather have my feelings be hurt than be ruled by what essentially is a form of thought
Now even if this law were passed, would the police and courts enforce it? If they didn’t, what would be the point of passing it to begin with. I guess you could say that about any law but in my eyes I could see our “system” twisting everything around. They would probably convict innocent people of “Hate crimes” and let the guilty people of “Hate” go. I don’t think it is fair to add another category to the crime list that could in the long run, ruin some peoples lives. I just think that it is wrong. I hope you see my point of view and agree with my opinion.
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.
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
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.
Perhaps in the end all we can really do it to try and come to terms with hate speech on a personal level. I believe 100 percent in the first amendment, and I look at having to tolerate hate speech as a price I have to pay for enjoying such a wonderful freedom. I don’t think it would be effective or warranted to limit the peoples freedom in attempts to try and stop the despicable practice of hate speech.
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.
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
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...
Critics believe that American citizens take advantage of civil liberties supporting limits on freedom of speech. They believe that degradation of humanity is inherent in unregulated speech. For example, according to Delgado and Stefancic, a larger or more authoritative person can use hate speech to physically threaten and intimidate those who are less significant (qtd. in Martin 49). Freedom of speech can also be used to demoralize ethnic and religious minorities. Author Liam Martin, points out that if one wants to state that a minority is inferior, one must prove it scientifically (45-46). Discouraging minorities can lead to retaliation, possibly resulting in crimes or threatening situations. "Then, the response is internalized, as it must be, for talking back will be futile or even dangerous. In fact, many hate crimes have taken place when the victim did just that-spoke back to the aggressor and paid with his or her life" (qtd. in Martin 49). Therefore, critics believe that Americans do not take into account the harm they may cause people and support limits on freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
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
The issue (which, in my opinion, makes a good argument) is that it ‘’creates complicated moral problems by making it appear as if a murder is "worse" when committed because of the victim's race, religion, or sexual orientation.’’ (Hate crime laws, 2014). Murder is one of the worst crimes that can be committed and it can have several motives and reasons behind it. Allowing hate crimes to be punished more severely or stating that hate crime is more ‘’aggressive’’ and ‘’brutal’’ is not fair to other victims and treats them unequally.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
Words are very powerful, and sometimes the words we use offend people. Freedom of speech is highly valued but what happens when your freedom becomes hurtful or disrespectful to someone else? There are so many different kinds of people and different things that offend each person. In this day where we are more inclined to say whatever we want, we see more and more offense being taken to the words that get said. It's hard to understand why certain words can be insulting to someone when it may not seem that way to you. We have to ask ourselves, why do we care what other people say and should we censer everything that goes into the public just so people don't get offended?