Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research methods
The nature of hate speech essay
Critical discourse analysis framework
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The article on hate speech by Karmen Erjavec and Melita Poler Kovačič (2012) relies on qualitative research methods to find out the beliefs and values regarding hate speech by researching the most used Slovenian news website comments using critical discourse analysis and conducting 20 in-depth interviews for the producers and analysing their thoughts and motives (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012:904). The in-depth interviews were an accurate way of gaining information about hate speech and the reasons for using hate speech as the interviews that were conducted provided clear opinion based and personal experiences that hugely influenced the research (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012:904). An example of this in the article is that it is stated that the main reason …show more content…
The interviews helped organise and create new themes regarding hate speech and this contributes to the approach of the author stating that nationalist and cultural issues shape hate speech according to Erjavec & Kovačič, (2012:916). This is evident in the article as categories were created based on the use of hate speech and what was discussed in the interviews and organised producers of hate speech were identified (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012:912). The first group is known as the soldiers which are the people who are political activists but some are part of non-governmental organisations, the believers are seen as the people who follow their role models and protect their political interest and attack enemies, the next group are known as the players who use hate speech to humiliate others and it is seen as an online game and the last category is the watchdogs who use hate speech to bring awareness about social issues (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012:909-912). This shows us the effectiveness of interviews as this information was gained from interviewing the producers of hate speech. Quantitative content analysis was used when identifying the categories oh hate speech at is an effective way to analyse data as it is an analytical process that interprets the data and makes inferences regarding the data (Schroder,
In the modern society, millions of people realize that several offensive words with insulting taboo meanings heavily disturb their daily lives and break some special groups of people’s respect to push them to feel like outsiders of the whole society. As a result, more and more people join some underway movements to eliminate the use of these offensive words in people’s everyday speech and writing. However, these offensive words themselves are not the culprit, the bad meanings people attach are the problems and some other functions of the words are useful in the society. Christopher M. Fairman the author of “ Saying It Is Hurtful, Banning It Is Worse” also argues that although
Critical Race Theory is an informative and useful tool that not only it allows people to trace race and racism’s attack in a society, but it also creates and promotes a better solution to comply with the issues. CRT’s processing is based on its five principles to create a race and racism hypothesis in which Yosso’s argument relies because she thinks it is “a dynamic analytical framework” (6). Critical Race Theory has become highly subject and inspired many people, in practicing the theory into their research. Because of the uncomplicated of the five concept of CRT, people can able to apply the theory into many different social structure’s perspective even though they have no knowledge about any legal training
There are several reasons why offenders commit hate crimes, they vary from case to case, however, one key element is fear which is caused by ignorance. The offenders fear the unknown and the competition they feel that exists, them vs. the ‘others’. When fear is accompanied by other factors it could potentially lead to a violent crime. “The
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.
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.
Hate speech, According to American Bar Association is "that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, other traits (American).” Hate speech can include “insulting nouns for racial groups, degrading caricatures, a threat of violence, and literature portraying individual as animal-like. There has been long debate whether to protect hate speech in the United States. The hate speech has been protected because it been fundament principle of the constitution. The some part of speech are regulated by the government usually are fighting words which are motivated to
Society consists of many different sociological groups. These groups involve people of diverse races, religions, and more. Unfortunately, hate crimes happen when groups become angry or frustrated towards each other. These groups are formed mostly during times of economic struggle or even social change. Hate groups continue to be a problem in our society. A group believes that the reason for a specific problem is only the fault of another racial, religious, or other group. The most common forms of crime in our society are due to hatred. Hate crimes are defined as a crime motivated by hatred, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody’s race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, disability, and/or sexual orientation. Plenty of hate crimes happen due to the fact that someone is different from someone else.
The use of media has always been very tactical and representative of a statement or purpose. The issue of race has always been a topic of immaculate exploration through different forms of media. Mediated topics such as race, gender, and class have always been topics represented in the media as a form of oppression. The widely use of media surrounds the globe extensively as the public is bombarded with media daily. There are many different types of media that circulates the public making it widely available to anyone. Media can hold an immense amount of power as it can distort the manner in which people understand the world. In our society the media creates the dominant ideology that is to be followed for centuries in the classifications of race, gender, and class. Media can be a powerful tool to use to display a message which, is how “…the media also resorts to sensationalism whereby it invents new forms of menace” (Welch, Price and Yankey 36). Media makers and contributors take advantage of the high power that it possesses and begin to display messages of ideologies that represent only one dominant race or gender. It became to be known as the “dominant ideology of white supremacy” for many and all (Hazell and Clarke 6).
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.
A hate crime is a crime motivated by several reasons that include religion, sexual orientation, race, nationality, gender etc. It typically involves physical violence, intimidation, threats and other means against the individual that is being targeted. It is a crime against the person and it can have a devastating impact on the victim. Several argue that hate crimes should be punished more severely. However, it is not a crime to hate someone or something if it does not lead to some sort of criminal offense.
Discursive Essay on Racism Racism has existed for centuries, but during the last two hundred years hatred toward ethnic minorities or even majorities has fluctuated. Racism occurs all over the world, can happen to anyone and will always exist. There are three different forms of racism, open racism, violent racism and secret racism all express forms of hatred towards ethnic groups. These forms of racism, although different, all have the same main purpose, to promote hate towards ethnic groups. Open racism expresses freedom of racial thought and speech.
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.
Prejudice refers to one’s biased opinions and ideas of others, based on secondary information. Hence, the internalized ideas concerning the prejudiced members in society does not result from personal experiences, but information from third parties. Where prejudice is prevalent, the social relationships between the concerned individuals become strained and unmanageable. The existence of equality in society discourages the frequency of prejudice on racial grounds. The content of this discussion explores the concept of prejudice, as it relates to racial inequality and discrimination. The discussion features the Emmanuel AME Church shooting scenario, which characterizes racial discrimination and inequality. The discussion further examines the role
From the readings assigned this past week. The main point that can be taken from them is the history of how colleges and universities have tried to censor hate speech. The court’s ruling most of these policies unconstitutional. The courts for the most part said that most of the policies were vague. My question is what is too vague for a policy dealing with hate speech? The authors try to explain it in the book, but I feel they did not give a complete answer or completely avoided to give a solid answer.