The possibility, for many Canadians, that someone can be limited in any of their freedoms or are unable to live in a nation where their liberties are unprotected is nearly unthinkable. Although, for many Canadians whose identity diverges from the dominant governing class, the same rights and freedoms that liberate others, confine them. Subject to hate speech, protected under Section 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, many of Canada’s diverse peoples have been forced to endure centuries of oppressive expressions of hate. Though, Canada’s evolution, in response to technological advancement and newly developing cultural norms and practices, has shifted the nation to more culturally relative views on regulating hate speech. As a result, …show more content…
Mills suggested that only an open discourse between and within supporting and opposing ideas can reveal the truth in a “marketplace of ideas”. This process of truth-finding is aided by the public whose opinions not only contribute to this discourse but also, help to decipher which information is accepted as truth (citation). Limiting this exchange of ideas, prevents society from establishing the truths in which their political, economic and social systems are based upon. The second of these arguments include the freedom for the public to actively participate in the democratic process. Freedom of speech is designed to protect and enhance democratic ideals, facilitating exposure to and the critique of political and judicial error. Freedom to express ones self also helps to promote and protect human rights, allowing individuals to critique political and social injustices. The liberty’s finally supporting argument is based upon the ideas of American lawyer Louis Brandeis and former member of the Supreme Court. Brandeis argued that “the ability and need to express oneself is an important characteristic of human beings. Further, free speech enables self-determining …show more content…
Among the many of these arguments includes the idea that hate speech is distinguishable from ration discourse because, according to Newman, “it slips in beneath the radar of consciousness and inflicts psychological damage in a way ordinary speech could never do” (Newman, 2002). Meaning that hate speech is distinguishable from the rational discourse that is meant to be free speech and is therefore, able to be subject to regulation. As a result, hate speech causes both harm to the individual it is expressed to and to the community in which that individual is associated to. Many supporters argue that hate speech attacks both the psychological and emotional health and causes the erosion of self-worth, denying members of the community target groups the opportunity for self-fulfilment by undermining their self-esteem. It can be argued that further harm could be caused to communities who become alienated by discrimination and growing racial and gender divisions in society, perpetuating inequality. This harm then has the possibility to interrupt the groups participation in the democratic process, suggesting that those who become objects of ridicule in their society are less likely to participate in public debate (Newman, 2002). According to communitarian rationale however, regulations against hate speech has validity only if it constitutes a
“Everyone loves free expression as long as it isn't exercised” (Rosenblatt 501). In the article, We are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid, and Dead, Roger Rosenblatt argues for the people’s right to freedom of speech and expression, that is given by the U.S Constitution. Rosenblatt argues that freedom of speech is one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers developed this country. For this reason, Rosenblatt believes that we should be tolerant and accepting of other’s ideas and beliefs. Even if one does not agree with someone else, they need to be understanding and realize that people have differing opinions.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
The right to freedom of expression can be described as a war. It is a
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
Should people be able to choose for themselves? Oliver Wendell Holmes said: Words can be weapons... the question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.8 The basic idea on the Freedom of Speech is counteract whatever one says or does. With the Nazi march in 1977, instead of protesting, have an anti-
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.
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
People has always had the right to free speech, which has been granted in the first amendment. However, with World war 1, much miltary criticism and Pro-German propaganda, the US Government passed the Espionage and Sedition acts, which would prohibit anything that would interfere with the success of the armed forces, incite disloyalty, or obstruct recruiting to the army as stated in Document 1 by Harries and Harries. According to William H. Rehnquist in Document 2, Charles T. Schenck was convicted in 1918 of violating the Espionage Act by printing and distributing leaflets to draftees about resisting the draft.
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
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.
“It (no-platforming) fails to differentiate between cases of genuine harm and those of trivial offense or discomfort.” The pro-platformers later discuss how, in the past, no-platforming was restricted to fascist or racist speech but today is used for complaints of feeling uncomfortable or threatened. Speaker 2 on the pro platforming side describes no-platforming as “counterproductive and incoherent” because the views we consider to be wrong are exposed through public discourse, and once we suppress free speech, we do not have the opportunity to allow ideas to be disproven and fail. “So multifaceted are the ways in which hateful views contained within an individual can be expressed and thereby cause harm to someone.” Speaker 2 goes on to explain that suppressing speech does not eradicate the harm, most intolerant or discriminatory discourse, does not take place in the public arena.
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.
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.