Are Hate Crime Laws useful or Should they be Revoked? The subject of hate crime and the validity of hate crime laws is a sensitive matter to many people. As a result, people tend to be divided into two groups, the first one is supportive of the laws and the second group opposes them. The laws of hate crimes might appear to be the solution; however they are not, therefore they should be revoked. Let’s start first with the legal definition of hate crimes.
Butler University also shows other reasons for why books are often times banned. Also, many are outraged that books like To Kill a Mockingbird is on the banned books list because they are time-honored books. Many people believe books should be banned because their content is deemed inappropriate for younger audiences or because their content is on sensitive subjects. However, others believe it is our First Amendment right to be able to read these books and that books contain important lessons in them. Christine Hauser, writer for The New York Times, agrees that books the controversial content manner should be banned.
One major reason books are banned is because they are not age appropriate (Common Reasons For Banning Books). Some books can be very inappropriate because they contain sexual references, or drug references that could potentially lead children to follow what they read in these books. For example, in To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, there are words used like “damn” and “whore lady” (Banned & Challenged Classics). Another main reason books are banned is due to racial issues (Common Reasons For Banning Books). Racial slurs are a big problem in books because some words can be very offensive to many different races.
Censorship in America can vary between the silencing of young voices and the prevention of exposing others of inappropriate material. Many people are afraid of losing their freedom of speech, as first amendment rights should be mandatory for American citizens. Polar to this argument insists the importance of censorship, as it can shield the public from information that can lead to fear or chaos. Leaving students ignorant to world problems, however, is argued by Sonja West that it removes their first amendment rights and creates a future working-class of Americans who are clouded from the truth. West is a law professor at the University of Georgia who is distinguished for her expertise in the first amendment law and minor in journalism.
The racism that was so normalized among Conrad and his peers has since placed his novel under attack by Chinua Achebe, who claimed that “Art is not intended to put people down. If so, the art would ultimately discredit itself” and that if it pulled out and dehumanized such a large portion of the human race, it could truly not be considered a work of art (Phillips). Yet, the racism embedded in the novel played a much larger part than merely being racism. Both Conrad and Marlow are clearly racist, but Conrad knows that the superiority held by the Europeans was wrong, and he uses Marlow to view that and to show that there is a possibility for it to change. He knows that although he could see no alternative, it was possible just as he saw with Imperialism.
People should not be targeted just because of their race or color. In our societies, Racism has only gotten worse because of the lack of education that is globally happening. The theme of interdependence is shown clearly because if one person supports a stereotype then it influences others, because the main group depends on individuals to participate on continuing
It is important to maintain an environment for victims to feel safe in but I don’t think it’s right to be silenced to the point where even talking about it for educating and information purposes is looked down upon. Morally, it’s always important to not have your speech make anyone feel uncomfortable or unsafe but especially for educational purposes it’s important to not feel like you must walk on eggshells because someone might find it offensive. Kaminer uses another example in her essay where she was “quickly branded a racist” because she used “the n-word” while teaching Huckleberry
Charles Lawrence in his racist speech tries to convince that racist speech needs to be regulated. He argues that hate speech is intolerable in the United States because it represents discrimination which Everyone defines hate speech differently. I define hate speech as anything that incites aggression regarding one person or a group of people. Now a day’s people uses free speech as a defense for saying anything but discriminating someone is not free speech. Hate speech against minority is discrimination which has no place in our society.
Judge, hate and be angry at someone that you don’t even know just because they have a different skin color! Racism, the topic that even though in this time period, almost everyone agreed that it’s bad, that one should not judge a person based on his or her skin color, race and how he or she dresses, still exist. But, why? How come even though one is taught that racism is unjust, how come one still does it? Is it because one race is better than the other?
In the peer review Gaertner and Dovidio’s theory of aversive racism is presented. Aversive racism is another word for the racism fueled by prejudice of members of another race. According to this theory, the problem with is that aversive racism is seen more in liberal and educated people that usually don’t see their actions as racist, just natural. This allows racism to go unnoticed thus making it hard to combat. Aversive racism is triggered by situations where an individual has less time to react thus is unable to truly process the situation.
I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech. These forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment because they can help to incite people
However, this wasn’t a wise or fair way to do this. Instead, this method is just creating more bad blood between the movement leaders and Native Americans. The leaders could have slowly introduced Native Americans into modern society. Perhaps giving them some rights that made them feel a part of the United States, instead of complete outsiders, which is what the Dawes Act accomplished. I feel like the act was very unjust and shouldn’t have occurred.
All freedoms should have a restriction somewhere, and this limitation should happen when one breaks a law for the purpose of a religion. Americans should have their freedoms, but safety is even more important. Harming others for the purpose of a religion is a threat to society, and can bring down the nation. It is not fair for the purpose of people to break the law just because of a religious belief, while other people get punished for breaking the law. The first amendment is a controversial topic that still gets debated today.