Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hate speakers and freedom of speech essay
Hate speakers and freedom of speech essay
Hate speakers and freedom of speech essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hate speakers and freedom of speech essay
Filtered Freedom
Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to prepare for the future, despite the severity of the content.
As a public place designed to encourage mental stimulation, obstruction of knowledge in a library is a sociological setback. Hindering a nation’s source of intellectual growth and the entire potential of the country, will inevitably do more harm than it can good. Though one may argue that the preservation of information regarding such events could inspire new acts of hate, the past will shed light on what to do in such situations. People need to understand why the statements made in the past did not always justify their actions. It is our cultural history that provides us with insight of what is just and what is prejudiced.
Cultural values feed off freedom of expression, whether it is through censorship or the proclamation of beliefs and feelings. Such a liberty is the foundation of our country, and should not be obstructed in a place of common ground such as a library.
In the article How Banning Books Marginalizes Children, the author, Paul Ringel, states that approximately fifty-two percent of the books banned in the last ten years illustrate “diverse content”, such as race, religion, gender identity, etc. Ringel believes that attitudes about which books are “appropriate” for kids to read have too often suppressed stories about different cultures and life experiences. He basis his argument around the pretext that when libraries stop the banning it will allow kids to learn how to navigate imaginary worlds filled with differences and apply those lessons to their own lives.
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
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.
That means because a political viewpoint is offensive to some one, it is inappropriate for a school library. What this leads to is children who will become legal adults, who can vote, that can say the reason they believe the way they do is because that is what their parents believe. That is an informed decision, which is what causes an ignorant society. Judith Krug, of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Office, has written: “ Censorship limits the ability of future voters and leaders to discern right from wrong, truth from falsehood, appropriate mode of operation as opposed to inappropriate.” (Flowers, Helen. “Inquiring Students Want to Know: Who Tries to Ban Books and Why?” #31) Books open up a different point of view that may be what a person of any age needs to make an informed decision. Charles William Eliot said it best when he said “Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of
"Book Destruction Controls Ideology." Book Banning. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Feb. 2011.
Orcas, or killer whales are majestic giants of the sea. They are actually the largest type of dolphin. They have long black bodies with distinct white patches near their eyes. A killer whale can be up to 32 feet or more in length, and weigh up to 12,000 pounds. Females are a bit smaller, but live longer (Gorman). The name “killer whale” apparently came not because it is a vicious whale, but because it preys on whales. They do not have any natural predators, and they are considered the “top dog” of the ocean. Not even the great white shark stands a chance against these superb killers. “Unlike sharks, killer whales are cautious hunters, sometimes spending hours harassing a 1,000-pound sea lion so it can easily be drowned” (Francis). Orcas use many hunting tactics that are unique to their species, which is what makes them invincible.
... Controls Ideology." Libricide: The Regime-Sponsored Destruction of Books and Libraries in the Twentieth Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003. 236-238. Rpt. in Book Banning. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Hate crimes are done too frequently in the United States. Although we have laws that supposedly regulate them, many people still feel the need to commit acts of violence on people that are different than them. Many of these crimes originate with some sort of hate speech. People get ideas from other people, passed down from previous generations.
The origin of modern day whales, a mystery that has puzzled paleontologists for years, may have just been solved with the discovery of an ankle bone. This discovery might sound simple and unimportant, but the bones of these ancient animals hold many unanswered questions and provide solid proof of origin and behavior. The relationship between whales and other animals has proven to be difficult because whales are warm-blooded, like humans, yet they live in the sea. The fact that they are warm-blooded suggests that they are related to some type of land animal. However, the questions of exactly which animal, and how whales evolved from land to water, have remained unanswered until now.
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 most debatable and controversial form of censorship today is the banning of books in school libraries. Banning books that educate students is wrong and selfish. Censorship of books in school libraries is neither uncommon nor an issue of the past. Books with artistic and cultural worth are still challenged constantly by those who want to control what others read. The roots of bigotry and illiteracy that fuel efforts to censor books and free expression are unacceptable and unconditional. Censoring school books in libraries can often lead to censorship of our basic freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. In some cases, a minority ends up dictating the majority in censorship cases. To be told what is permissible reading material and what is not is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
When regulating the content that someone sees or hears, it is the sole responsibility of the individual to block harmful or offensive content from themselves or their children. In an article by Dan Gutman, a children’s book author, he states that if a piece of literature is banned from a school library, it is not only blocke...
The common image that comes to mind on the topic of censorship is that of book burning. Dating back to ancient times, the easiest way to deal with unwanted writings has been to get rid of them, usually by heaping them into a blazing pyre. In his most famous science fiction novel, Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury warns of a futuristic society where all literature is destroyed under a kerosene flame and the citizens' freedoms are kept in check by the lack of written information. In fear of this kind of totalitarianism, many bibliophiles have fought against all manners of censorship, wielding the first amendment and the rights recognized by our fore-fathers. But with the technological advances of this the last decade of the twentieth century and the up welling of a new informational medium comes a new twist to the struggle for freedom of expression.
One of the most-well known diving cetaceans is the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). The world’s largest carnivore, this massive cetacean makes extremely deep dives for food, mainly squid and octopus, but also fish and sometimes giant squid (Burnie and Wilson 2005). Sperm whales can dive to depths of 400 to 1200 meters, and for durations of up to 138 minutes (Watwood et al. 2006). The majority of sperm whale dives have been reported to last from 33 to 53 minutes (2006). Sperm whales have to overcome several fundamental problems while diving at such great depths: the effects of pressure and the need to actively forage while holding their breath. Adaptations to pressure have to deal with the mechanical effects of pressure and the increased solubility of gas at depth (Costa 2007). Adaptations to breath-holding diving center around modifications in metabolism, blood flow, and an increased oxygen storage capacity (2007).
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.