Free Speech Is A Double Wrong Essay

The argument of free speech vs. censorship has been roaring within the past 5 years. Even now, when you turn on the TV or log onto Facebook or Twitter, one would see the United States citizens worried about their freedom of speech rights being taken away with “censorship”. This issue is significant because the right to freedom of speech is stated in First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Citizens should have every right to worry about their freedom of speech being taken away because these rights give the ability to express ourselves and fight for what is best. Yet this raises the question of should we be concerned about people that use it for extremism and racism? One might think of a quote by Frederick Douglass when considering this topic, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong.

It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money” (Douglass, 1860). In this research report, resources of academic nature such as: The First Amendment (U. S. Constitution. amend. I), Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and The First Amendment (Matsuda, 2010), and Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy (Volokh, 1999) will be used to obtain a better understanding of how the marginalization of ethnic minorities affects their ability to free speech. Additional research will be presented to address how we can help those who are affected by hate speech. In this process sources were obtained from literature, scholarly websites, and peer reviewed articles. In addition, using the “C.R.A.P.P.O” method has also helped strengthen the reliability of resources to see if they are up-to-date and from a reputable source. This investigation is eminent for those who have an interest in such topics and for those who are affected by

it.
Using select social principles to delve into this issue, one has to describe exactly what “free speech” is in America. This concept is difficult because of the unique nature of free speech. The aspect of liberty that ingrains itself in American culture leaves free speech to fit into more than just one social principle. Inherently, one would label free speech as a social institution, because it is guaranteed to citizens by the government via the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but this would imply that the government, and more bluntly a sheet of paper, is the only thing that promises us this right. Believing such a statement is not only paramount to whether or not a minorities’ free speech can even begin to be limited, but also undermines the very spirit, concept, and founding ideology of the United States. This is proven self evident by how rights define the history and culture of the this country, as upon its conception, the founding fathers declared our independence by clearly stating, "that [humans] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (U.S. Declaration of Independence. I. ) With this very stroke of a quill, free speech is clearly conceived as something that would fit more into “beliefs and values” when separated into social science values. In fact, it could be argued that the bill of rights, from a historical perspective, explicitly excludes free speech from being a social institution - quite the opposite, the Bill of Rights exists to insulate the government from improaching on their citizens God-given rights.
Over the past decade, social media has played a part in freedom of speech, or specifically, hate speech. All citizens have a right to freedom of speech and expression, but some use their rights as a citizens of the United States to verbally disservice others. Social media may be a gathering hub for extremists who use the Bill of Rights to protect themselves from the consequences of hate speech. It defends these extremists by confining the capacity of legislatures or judges to suppress them. The right establishes a dispensation to the rule of democratic mechanisms with the aims of preserving democracy. At a second remove, hate speech interdictions indicate confines upon those restrictions, correspondingly intending to defend vulnerable individuals, and thus to maintain democracy. At a third remove, the hate speech interdictions should handle curbs of their own. Legislatures and courts should clarify how far (Popescu Ljungholm, 2016) they extend. The link between media, evidence, and hate speech has undeviatingly gone forward over time via culture rivalries, misinformation, and the cutting edges of media technology. The Internet’s distinctive features enable revolutionary social campaigns to unobtrusively legitimize their objectives (Becerra Alonso et al., 2016) via an appropriated web of associations. The paradigms of cyberspace may unintentionally take a dishonest currency, e.g. hate speech, and revamp it into an indefinite type of web-based knowledge. For racist and radical action groups, the indistinctive and decentralized infrastructure (Olssen and Peters, 2015) of the Internet indicates that they are no longer identified. Hate groups may instantly disseminate their comments across the world, while, nonetheless, remain guardedly undetected on the web. The line that an individual traverses from a politically acrimonious controversy (Ion, 2015) into racist attitude may be questionable, but it is not nonexistent. (Klein, 2017)
In conclusion, [how does] the marginalization of ethnic minorities ((negatively)) affects their ability to free speech((.))? A social scientist could go about a few ways of investigating this further. Finding facts and resources is the most important. Using scholarly websites and books to find information and testing these websites with the C.R.A.P.P.O method will be a guaranteed way of knowing that they are viable. It would also be smart to possibly gather some personal opinions from ethnic minorities to see how to affects them in their society. The social scientist could even use articles posted on biased opinions to gather this information. For example, one could create a poll for these minorities with a variety of answers to see how it affects them, or even contact certain individuals privately to get an more in-depth outlook.