Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Censorship and freedom of speech
Censorship and freedom of speech
Censorship and freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Censorship and freedom of speech
Lyons 1
Symphoni Lyons
Steve Lewis
Writing 101/4
November 1, 2017
Should hate speech and offensive speech be illegal?
When it comes to controversial speech, it is important to know the difference between hate speech and offensive speech while also taking note of the fine line that separates them. Hate speech is targeted towards a certain race, gender, and religion, while offensive speech threatens an individual, without regard to the aforementioned traits. There have been ongoing debates to determine what type of speech is included on a person’s Constitutional right, as part of the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives the citizens of the United States of America the right to freely speak and express themselves. To be free in
…show more content…
Educating people at a young age about hate speech and offensive speech, and how it can affect other people, will potentially help them become better people later in life. For example, when it comes to a group of college students using a racial slur then calling it “free expression,” they need to be brought to the realization that what they’re doing is wrong and hurtful. We are raised with the idea that we shouldn’t say swear words but rarely do we hear from elders that we shouldn’t say anything offensive to other people. If everyone respected each other …show more content…
Knowledge is power. It is important to learn how to refrain from being offensive, both on and off the internet. The anonymity that a screen provides makes it easy for hateful or offensive speech to be posted without concern for the consequences, and that poses a serious threat to everyone's online safety.
“American free speech jurisprudence relies on the assumption that speech is merely the extension of a thought and not an action” (260). If every word was treated as an action a lot fewer people would openly spew hate in the world. People’s actions are noted and criticized or praised every day. If hateful words started to have the same consequences that hateful actions have, then hate speech would be lessened significantly.
Whether it’s hate speech or offensive speech, it will always be hard to pinpoint what is considered to be “too far.” From flag burning to saying slurs, each statement or action can be understood or misunderstood differently by different people.There needs to be more emphasis on the power of words and how words can affect other people. We should be able to report hate in all of its forms without feeling ashamed or afraid. The freedom of speech should not mean jeopardizing other people’s sense of safety within their own communities, lest we all suffer from the carelessness of
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 first amendment states every United States citizen has the right to press, petition, assembly freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Also, the amendment states the government is not allowed to make any law that breaks the rights of a citizen. In the case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the argument was if the students’ first amendment was violated, but the public schools are not an appropriate place to express freedom of 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.
One key to the first amendment of the United states constitution is the right to free speech. Freedom of speech is what separates America than other countries around the world that forbid freedom of speech rights. Freedom of speech has been in our constitution since the year 1791. When James Madison “the father of the constitution” wrote the bill of rights he saw potential and that it would make the country more freedom filled than other countries. The land of the free is what the United States is nicknamed and it 's because of our rights to express ourselves as freely as we desire.
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.
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.
In the first amendment, it is stated that all people have the Freedom of speech, religion,
For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has been at the heart of United States’ history and most successful research in liberty. The history of America’s nation is the story of the constant struggle to extend the promise of freedom more fully and fairly to each and every citizen. By looking freedom of speech, democratic government is not that important to have it without these rights. People prefer democracy to avoid tyranny or suppression of others. The citizens of the United States need to protect these rights because they are fundamental to the human being to be free, have liberty. What Founding Fathers did is not enough, however, United States’ citizens has to work together for a better place, a better country, a better government.
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).
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
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.
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.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
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?