Hate Speech Research Paper

Miguel Raymundo Hernandez
Dr. Jack Hull
Ethic in Government
Nov. 30,2015
The Protection of Hate Speech
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

harm an individual. The freedom of speech is one the important aspect of the United States principal that protects people from the government and allows them to be free.
Legal aspect
The legal structure in the United State protects all forms of speech. The First Amendment clearly states the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abrading the freedom of Speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ( Stevens page. 4)”

This includes the hate speech. The United States proud itself the freedom of speech and the citizens have the right to up when their rights are being violated. The all forms speeches are generally protected but some speech are not. The Supreme Court has knowledge the government can regulate fighting words, which inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate bread of the peace. The government has the right make sure individuals are not harmed physically. The speaking hateful words should motivate to harm someone. Some legal scholar argues that punish hate speech is punishing thought, however, the criminal law punishes motive as “ long as the offender’s general character or set of values is not being punished..” many situation the government has a hard time distinguish between that is offensive and speech that is injurious.
There have been many court cases that have clarified where the constitution stands in hate speech. The court has ruled in favorite of most all speech. In 1992, R.A.V v the City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down the St. Paul ban of anti-bigoted law. The US court has ruled against fighting words that threat person life like a person shouting fire in threat. In Gertz vs Robert makes the first Amendment is the recognition of the fundament important of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest. One best known court case to deal with hate speech was Snyder V. Phelps. In which dealt with Westboro Baptist Church holding signs and yelling “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates Fags” in soldiers funerals. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps. In which the Westboro Baptist church has the right to picket the funeral as long it keep a distance. Justice Alito disagrees in which he believe that is freedom of speech, but the church went too far. He stated the following “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."
Hate speech is complex because one hand it’s protected by the constitution and the other hand inflict harm on victims. According to Eugene Volovh, New York Times reporter, there is different between a hate speech and fighting words. Threatening to kill someone base on is likely to be a crime but does not mean it a hate speech. The author use example that someone is sleeping with their best friend wife the individual threaten to kill the person does mean it a hate speech. Under the U.S law “hate speech” has no legal meaning and never clearly define the hate speech.
Against Regulation
Regulating forms of speech may increase in the future and might endanger the liberty of speech. For speech to be free it must powerful and without restraint. The people are entitled to determine for constitutes the truth. The state cannot distinctions between valuable and non-valuable ideas. Supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said:
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."

The U.S society should champion individual freedom and allow debate of ideas without regulations. When hateful speech is counter with individual have the right to make argument and discredit such speech. Hate speech in the untied states has come under attack. Laws that regulate hate is speech is difficult to control because first it need clarified “hate speech.” Someone offense other person would be consider “hate speech” under new laws. Making that gives more control to the government and for the purpose the general of society is danger. For free speech to speech there can not be regulation on it. Hate speech target might target a group and lead to violates but allow individals speech freely without fear punishment.
Reasons not to protect hate speech / regulation on hate speech
The goal of the constitution protect all speech, but one might argue that hate undermines democracy which is U.S founded under. U.S argues that all citizen are political and legal equals. The democracy which part of U.S principle claims the citizen are equal under the law. Hate speech can divide groups and undermined their rights. Individuals can speak hate words that target groups of individual. American society does not insist that all citizens including minorities then the U.S democracy is not functioning. The author of Hate Speech and Democracy argues that the government should not protect hate speech because cause danger or harmful or illegal conduct. The problem with hate speech it creates imminent dangers in society. Hate speech leads to the violation of individual in society, especially among minorities. Many of hate speech are target toward minorities groups like Jews, Hispanic, and African American. Those speeches turn violate crime toward those groups and their rights are violated. Though speech, people can harm each other.
The part of democracy must include free speech, but the right to free speech cannot include hate speech.

One main argument that opponents of protecting hate speech is the "hate speech" turns into hate crimes. A hate crime is a “crime perpetrated against a victim because of perceived characteristic of an individual that many associate him or her with a social group.” The hate speech leads or promotes hate crime. Hate speech regulation is needed to maintain order in society and protect everyone rights.
Moral
Is hate speech free speech? This question has long been a debate among scholars. Hate is destructive and usually targets a minorities group. Prevents other from speaking out. According to Abigail Bright the author Hate Speech and Equality “hate speech work against the fabric of a democratic society, which is based on mutual respect, is nebulous and flighty.” The hate speech in the morality aspect is wrong because bring hate into society and allow for violates of individual rights.

International
It important to understand where the world stands in hate speech. The world has become interconnect and countries laws have an impact on American citizens. International law permits or even requires, states to prohibit hate speech. In countries have passed that regulate hate speech. Hate speech laws being implement all over the world to prevent violate or genocide against particular groups of people. Today, countries like Mexico, Canada and most of all western European country. After, World War II many countries fear that hate speech leads to genocide so they found a way to regulate it, but it undermines their citizens freedom. European countries have made laws to curb racial and religious hatred. At first, the laws were intended to prevent hatred toward particular groups. They have given rise criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one race, religion, and ethnicity. Speeches that never tend to be punished by the laws are now being punish by the government. France the passed the Press Law of 1881 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred or violence. In 2000, Jean-Marie Le Pen, runner-up in the 2002 election, was convicted of inciting racial hatred toward Muslim immigration. In the Netherlands prohibit making verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred. Many countries around the global have made difficult to for hate speech to part of their society, but limiting speech has had a negative consequence.

Hate in Internet/ university
Hate speech has become a problem in the Interne and around college campus. Extremists have take advantage to express their view. On online like, YouTube, can express view freely but there are harmful. Despite the awful language in the internet is protect by the United states laws. Also some companies have censorship. An article punish by BBC question whether companies have the to censorship because might be violate first amendment. Legally companies have the rights to ban whatever they want, when it comes down.
Colleges campus have experience with hate speech and dealt with it different ways. The debate of hate speech has increase colleges. A Recent event has many students talking about racial equality and there have many racial slur or speeches. During the 1980’s and early ’90 many public colleges and universities sought combat discrimination and hate speech by passing codes that prevent kind of speeches. Proponent of the codes agrue that help combat discrimination while other agrue that movement of “political correctness” Many universities speech codes sought to end hate speech, that first Amendment should protect hate speech. Much previous stated, many court case dealt with limiting hate speech has been struck down by the courts, however, the universities has change terminology it used to regulate various forms of hate speech. According to First Amendment Center “many of hate speech codes are being wrapped into ant-harassment policies.” The colleges are routinely punish student and faculty for hateful message.

Conclusion
Throughout this have point reason for regulate or against regulate.

Freedom of speech is important part of the United States society. Yes, hate speech is harm to society, but also limit speech. Free speech has long been a debate about regulating it and protects it. People say awful things about other people and the government. The states, companies, and colleges have tried to punish or limit hate speech. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful in their effect. When the government starts regulating on free speech the people are giving up a powerful tool but the other hand hate speech violate other people liberties. As individuals are allow to speak hateful words and tried to attack a particular group people have the right encounter with positive words. Both side of argument will be allow express their without being

punish.