Hate Speech Synthesis Essay

The first amendment famously known as the “Freedom of Speech” had always defended by the United States Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. However, with the right of to voice our own opinion has led to some people inflicting hate to different group of people in a form of a hate speech. Hate speeches have always existed ever since the introduction of the first amendment in the United States constitution. They usually come into hating against American politicians based on their actions that they don’t agree. However, some individuals believe that hate speeches should be regulated. To address the both sides of the topic, the CQ reporter obtained a statement from Michel Rosenfeld and a response from James Weinstein to how they see the

785). His argument, detailed in his statement was supported by a few examples based on historic events. In 1978, a neo-Nazi group was allowed by the courts to march in a Chicago suburb populated by Holocaust survivors. neo-Nazis are Holocaust deniers and have religious intolerance toward religions other than their brand of Christianity. The Nazi party in Germany was responsible for violence and discrimination against Jewish Europeans, as well as other groups, which lead to a great deal of suffering and death. The courts (as reasonable people) did not prevent the neo-Nazi message/behavior (the hateful rhetoric) against people who are Jewish. He continues to support his conclusion with another example of a SCOTUS unanimous decision in 1992 that ruled it was unconstitutional to punish individuals in St. Paul who had burned a cross on the lawn of an African American family. SCOTUS did not prevent the Klan’s message/behavior against people who are African American. Then, he continues to say that by “regulating hate speech will uphold the dignity and cement the communal bonds of American

On the other side of the issue, Weinstein proposes that “bigoted ideas should be refuted, not censored”(Mante, 2015, p.785) Because the First Amendment guarantees each individual the right to express any viewpoint, even those that the vast majority of Americans finds offensive, disturbing or even morally repugnant” (Mantel, 2015, p. 785). Then he speculates that of the first amendment becomes more restrained from laws that regulates hate speech would likely undermine the vigorous protection of public discourse” that the First Amendment protects (Mantel, 2015, p. 785). SCOTUS would have a difficult time “articulating a principle, which would exclude hate speech from First Amendment protection” and not result in censorship of other ideas (Mantel, 2015, p. 785).Because hate speech does not cause people to “discriminate against minorities” (Mantel, 2015,.). Then he goes on to explain his reasoning on why he believes that the regulation of hate speech shouldn’t be considered a positive idea. For example, he believes that the regulations would likely impede public discussion of important issues. The he supports his stance by addressing the negative effects of the regulations on the ability for a society to