However, I feel that Mill’s harm principle is not efficient of specific enough to follow. There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. There are people who direct their speech to purposely harm others. This sort of speech should not be tolerated or allowed. By allowing people to express their hate in the form of speech, it would decrease the overall happiness of the majority.
Reynolds defines hate speech as something that is very difficult to define because there is never going to be an idea or opinion that everybody agrees with without any contradiction. He states that hate speech is “meaningless” and is just a form of speech that people contradict. He parallels hate speech to “racist, sexist, or poor in taste”, but doesn 't explicitly say that hate speech is exactly that. Additionally, Reynolds says that fighting words are not considered hate speech, but rather an allurement to fight one-on-one. Reynolds is basically saying that there is no such of a thing as hate speech because all speech is protected whether it is homophobic, racist, sexist etc.
One may call me fatuous for making these points, because one may think I agree to the existence of good and evil because I stated it is artificial. Well, be prepared to be debunked, as when one references good and evil, they use no scientific evidence of its existence. It’s typically based off of one’s moral compass, law, and literature, but is never genuinely based on a highly accredited scientific source. However, one may argue that you can use people with mental issues who do crimes are evil. But, I believe that is an irrational fallacy because they aren’t mentally intact enough to make competent decisions.
What distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime is motive. In order for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be motivated by the group membership of the victim. Critics of hate crime laws have argued that they are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections of free speech, association, and freedom of thought. Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) in which freedom of thought was determined to be implied by the First Amendment.
Pros and Cons of Hate Crime Laws Hate crime laws are defined as a state law that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so. However, in 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Secondly, the speech or act should incite fear or coerce their target. Lastly, an act qualifies as hate speech if it seeks to defame one’s character. David Archard seeks to explain hate speech in two different ways he states that an act or speech is hateful if it expresses hate to another and if the recipient is offended by the speech or act. He goes further to state that the wrongfulness of some free speech or act doesn’t lie in the reaction it provokes but its intentions and the best way to figure this out is through insult analysis. This is essential in distinguishing what this essay seeks to
Any evaluation of whether, how, or how much, hate speech ought to be prohibited. It must therefore account for certain key variables, namely , who and what are involved and where, when and under what circumstances these cases arise. They also make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be prohibited. As it, anywhere may make a difference depending on the country, society or culture involved, which may justify flatly prohibiting all Nazi propaganda in Germany but not in the United States may also matter within the same country or society. Thus, hate speech in an intracommunal setting may in some cases be less dangerous than if uttered in an intercommoned setting.
The law may sometimes be “inconsiderate” but it keeps us in order. We may sometimes say it is harsh but it is because we are used to be “free” in a way that we do not follow rules and order. These things happen to us because we are not led by a good public official. Even the officials do not follow the law because they think they are an exemption which is not. We cannot remove the law.
“Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can’t vent any anger against them, I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist” (Flood). Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, that are considered obscene, politically acceptable, or a threat in security.
They also search them even if they have no evidence that they have committed a crime. Racial profiling is obviously illegal violating the U.S. Constitution’s main point of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Racial profiling doesn 't really help anyone usually alienating communities because of their ethnicities. Which causes the people not to trust the police. My first
Stop and should be arrested because it promotes racial profiling, police brutality, and violates person’s rights of the Fourth Amendment. Although it is meant to protect others and keep them out of harm’s way it is not protecting those who are getting frisked because the majority of them are innocent. The people should have their rights protected and abide by no matter what the color of their skin
I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.