Curtailing Hate Speech: An American Dilemma

While Americans may cherish their rights as afforded by the U.S. Constitution, it seems they are also sometimes willing to curtail them. This appears to be the case with certain forms of speech; more specifically when dealing with examples of hate speech. Hate speech is a form of articulation meant to harshly single out specific groups of people based upon their distinct characteristics, such as gender, race or sexual orientation, in ways that may provoke prejudicial actions or violence against them. A recent YouGov poll shows that a slight majority of respondents would support new legislation making hate speech a criminal offence (Moore). Advocates in favor of such legislation argue on the grounds that it dehumanizes specific groups, and is

9). When using the definition of hate speech provided in the previous paragraph it may be construed that a standard by which it is determined would also apply to various representatives of the civil rights movement as well. In his 1964 speech titled “The Ballot or the Bullet,” Malcom X challenged leaders of the movement to develop a new strategy to effect change in the country and if not two choices were left to African Americans: change the political system through the vote, or to change prevailing social conditions through revolution, “It’ll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. It’ll be ballots or it’ll be bullets. It’ll be liberty, or it will be death” (Malcom X para. 25). Many White Americans during this period might take the argument as a threat because they may have perceived such views were those of his religious beliefs and in accordance with the Nation Islam, an organization that favored African American succession and demonization of White people. However, the Supreme Court would not have viewed his speech as