When the founders wrote the first amendment, it was to protect the freedom of speech, to protect people’s freedom of speech of any kind. The first amendment should protect all forms of speech even if they might be hateful to some, this type of speech should be protected because speech is one of the few ways that their voices can be heard. Because people express their opinions in different forms and share what they believe indifferently, and whether they are wrong or right, and it’s their right. Their right to say what they want to say and each person can decide if they choose to ignore it or listen to it. Similarly, when the protesters were protesting near the funeral, they stayed within their boundaries and Snyder could have chosen to …show more content…
Most people label the speeches that they find themselves disagreeing with as a hate speech to hush the over the side. But in the end hate speech is a normal speech like any other type of speech. According to Kenan: “Not just the banning of hate speech but the very categorization of an argument or a sentiment as ‘hate speech’ can be problematic for the democratic process. I am in no doubt that some speech is designed to promote hatred. And I accept that certain arguments – like the direct incitement of violence – should indeed be unlawful. But the category ‘hate speech’ has come to function quite differently from prohibitions on incitement to violence. It has become a means of rebranding obnoxious political arguments as immoral and so beyond the boundaries of accepted reasonable debate. It makes certain sentiments illegitimate, thereby disenfranchising those who hold such views”. As long as the speech is not promoting violence, or is not one of the types of speeches that are not protected by the first amendment, then there’s no reason for it not to be heard and be debated with the
Our First Amendment within the United States Constitution protects our freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, which are umbrella terms for our right to protest, among others. We, as american citizens, have the right to protest whatever we choose,whether it be a television program, a new law that has been passed, or in the Snyder v. Phelps case, deceased veteran funerals. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s family filed a lawsuit against the Phelps family and their followers, otherwise known as the Westboro Baptist Church, who the Snyder 's felt intentionally inflicted emotional distress whilst picketing Matthew Snyder’s funeral. The United States Supreme Court determined that speech in a public space, cannot be liable for any emotional distress,
¶2. One type of protected free speech that is especially controversial is hate speech. ¶3. Hate speech is not permitted if it is threatening. ¶4.
Free speech must be protected, and that means all free speech, whether it is the controversial speaker, the radical protesters or the extremist counter-protestors. All of their rights to free speech must be protected so long as no physical violence and unrest is incited — meaning that we all will have to hear things that we don’t agree, speeches that infuriate us and tear us down from speakers we loathe, but we must learn from what they say. We must learn their perspective as well as our own. It was Robert Kennedy, after the death of Martin Luther King Jr, who said, “And even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.” The things people say will always hurt us, but it is our job to find that wisdom and make peace instead of silencing our opponents in an endless
The 1st Amendment guarantees the individual the freedom of religion, speech, press, to assemble, and to petition the government. Freedom of speech allows for people to partake in the democratic process by allowing them to speak their beliefs and political ideals. Without the freedom, there couldn’t be a democracy (Ginsberg, 2014). Though there are different forms of speech, some that are protected and some that are not. There are different ways of looking at the 1st Amendment.
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.
It would to wrong to assume the use of our freedom of speech has never been used to cause emotional and mental harm to others. Many people are troubled as to what qualifies as hate speech and what does not. Hate speech is the grey line in allowed and not allowed by society. The point to be made is that society has placed a feeling of, frowned upon when hate speech is mentioned. There are many forms for which hate speech can be addressed.
The First Amendment in the United States was created in 1789. Within the First Amendment is the right of religion, freedom of speech, the press, right of the people to assemble, and for people to petition the Government. Freedom of speech is linked with the freedom of religion, the press, and for the right to assemble because all of those activities involve speech in some sort of way. In the United States constitution freedom of speech was established in 1791. Freedom of speech is very controversial, therefore many Supreme Court cases have been formed over the years.
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true. There is no hate speech exception to First Amendment. There are some kind of words which are not protected especially the fighting or insulting words or speech in which a person threatens to commit a crime that would result in death, serious injury, or damage is not protected by the First Amendment, instead First Amendment gives the right to fight against injustice, inequality and unfairness. For example Black Lives Matter movement, this movement has every right to express their feelings. The ways they are protesting are protected under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment Have you ever wondered what life in the U.S. would be like if we didn’t have the first Amendment? The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. This Amendment is what holds this country together. It’s what keeps us from rebelling against each other. The first Amendment has an extremely important role in the founding of the United States.
In Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech”, Lakoff claims that not everyone is able to understand hate speech because not everyone goes through it, or they don't find it a big deal because it doesn't happen to them. Someone might claim that they know that hate speech doesn't happen that often but, what is hate speech? Hate speech is to “promote violence” and it is “created by people who are a majority of the population; directed toward people who are a part of a minority population.” (bsu.edu). The First Amendment allows people to speak what they want, and express themselves.
Although hate speech is bigoted, hate-mongering, and can potentially lead to hate crimes, it should still be considered free speech. If citizens of the United States are not allowed to be verbal about their beliefs, whether or not they are offensive and hateful, then there is no use in allowing free speech. Placing limitations on free speech contradicts the First Amendment, therefore making it inaccurate and useless.
Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.
The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate
We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate