Flames, tear gas, riots, city blocks destroyed; all consequences of a single statement. In today's modern society, acts of derogatory communication, known as hate speech, have become a controversial topic in America. Although hate speech is awful, it should be protected by the first amendment. Hate speech should continue being permitted because omitting such phrases would set a precedent for censorship, and oppress the minority. Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority. While hate speech should be better defined, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. Hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a debate if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against …show more content…
The overarching idea of the internet and hate speech is that it will spread if not censored and it will give a false idea that speech that is hateful is ok. Sean McElwee, Writer and researcher for the Huffington Post, said that “...the freedom of the press should be governed by a very strict prohibition of all and every anonymity.” However, with the Internet, the public dialogue has moved online, where hate speech is easy and anonymous. This leads to the thought of the hate speech spreading to them bullying others with these hateful ideas. A study by Karen Kaplan a writer for the Los Angeles Times found that Kids that are bullied or physically abused have a 60% higher rate to develop mental health issues. The direct link between bullying and mental health is increasingly real and it will continue without the censorship of hate speech on the internet. But the reality, there are better ways to stop hate speech without removing free speech. The main argument for this is to instead of repressing peoples ideas, let them be heard and have the public decide if the ideas are good or not for themselves. Marcus Schulzke a lecturer at the University of York says ”The social benefits of protecting hate speech become clear when one considers how the use of hate speech exposes those with hateful beliefs to public evaluation”. This shows how the people are the best deciders to find what speech is really hateful. The other part of this is that the lines between what is hateful and what is not. Eric Tucker a writer for PBS says “It’s one thing to say, ‘Kill all the Jews,’ versus ‘Kill that Jew who was my kid’s school teacher who gave him an F”). The line between free and hate speech are subjective and vary from person to person so should anyone have the right to decide. With this being said, there are real emotional effects that happen from hate speech,
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.
Baby Thesis: Schools should not be able to limit students’ online speech because cyberbullying is proven to not affect most students and teachers.
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).
And even though the First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech, including such hate speech, there are limits. The federal and all state governments, including public colleges and universities and private schools that accept federal financial aid, cannot unnecessarily regulate speech, with the following exceptions: “obscenity, figh...
Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful freedoms and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of speech is perhaps our most cherished, and one of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all endure to ensure our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.
How much we valuse the right of free speech is out to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life promises the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Where racist, sexist and homphobic speech is concerned, I believe that more speech - not less - is the best revenge. This is particualrly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. They can organize effectively to encounter bad attitudes, possibly to change them, and imitate togetherness against the forces of intolerance.
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.
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.
Moreover, cyberbullying has longer effects through a child’s life, leading the victims to turn into victim-bullies (Donegan 1). Victim bullies take their own frustrations on bullying others as an escape to help them cope with their pain caused by cyberbullying. In addition, it’s been reported that bullies commit at least one crime as an adult whereas victim-bullies commit a 23 percent higher than of the bullies (Donegan 4). Konnikova doesn’t mention that bullies also need help as much as the victims, but not all bullies are born that way. In fact, most of them have been bullied before or they have psychological problems (Donegan 5). Indeed, people should take this statistics as a wakeup call to help cyberbullies to cope with their frustrations to lower the numbers of victims, to create a better childhood, and a healthier adolescence for a better
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.
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.
There are many who believe hate crime should be punished more severely since it ‘’has the potential to cause greater harm.’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014) Hate crimes, like racial discrimination, have unfortunately been a part of this country for centuries, racial discrimination was rampant in the 19th and 20th century, but mostly in the south; many segregation laws were created at the time ‘’that banned African Americans from voting, attending certain schools, and using public accommodations. ’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014)
Today we have looked at the problem known as hate crimes and the varied causes which keep it in existence. We have also discussed some solutions to this act of hate.
Freedom of speech has been the core principle we have fought long and hard for centuries to achieve. It is the fundamental reason why the founders seperated from England and started their own colonies on the idea of becoming free. In recent times the idea of freedom of speech has been put into question as there has been incidents for years of racism, religious differences and discriminatory abuse. What comes into question is what exactly is your freedom of speech rights and what should be and should not be said in the public eye. The problems that we see arising in today’s society is discrimination and abuse against one another for opposing views and what exactly should your freedom of speech rights entail to as many hate crimes have occurred
As of today, there are people who have fallen victim to Hate Speeches. Though there are some who would say that it depends on the victim’s perspective, it still doesn’t justify the pain inflicted upon the person. Various studies have shown that the harms caused by hate speech can take diverse forms: psychologically, it for instance, you can have psychological harm which affects people's' self-confidence and self-esteem and perhaps their ability to participate freely in public debate and public affairs generally. Many of those who are victims of Hate Speech may self harm, or become suicidal, their confidence and self esteem may be affected. What to one person is simply “nothing”, it would mean so much to someone else.