Charles Lawrence Racist Speech Summary

The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc. by not allowing them the

This extent of hostility and aggression coming from several other sources in the play was enough to ruin Othello. Thus, Othello’s downfall was more of a result of his race being that the main underlying motive behind the characters’ efforts to destroy him was racism.   It is inadequate to bypass the sociology behind racism, the concept of race, prior to defining what racism actually is. The common understanding of race suggests the division of groups based upon the color of one’s skin, hair, eyes, etc. “Although biologically meaningless when applied to humans – physical differences such as skin color have no natural association with group differences in ability or behavior – race nevertheless has tremendous significance in structuring social reality” (Clair).

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.

Marriage is a contract between two people and honestly I think that the society should not be interfering this bond. Not permitting the right to marry another human is a severe violation of the human rights and freedom. James Carville “I was against gay marriage until I realized that I didn’t have one.” The statement is self-explanatory: “You don’t get to judge because you don’t have the

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.

In the light of the above facts, the following arguments can be drawn. First of all, blasphemy laws or hate speech laws violate the basic fundamental right of every individual that is the right to freedom of expression along with right to equality which is another fundamental right of the people. These fundamental rights are protected by International Human rights instruments. A blasphemy law in practise prohibits the freedom of expression when it comes to the offering of criticism, asking of questions, making an expression of mockery or contempt or ridicule or sarcasm, in any way relating to any religion. A person was found guilty because his newspaper published James Kirkup’s poem

People often misunderstand how the right to protest free speech, and democracy works, often thinking in an entitled mentality “free speech is important for me” , the need to protest has increasing over past few years, many people are discontent with the globalization and the government. Protesting is a right, but when used for free speech, it is not always the answer.(state posision) The right to protest is one of basic human rights; however, the right to protest does not allow anyone to destroy the property. The injustices being done by groups does not merit the need more violence. As Martin King said “So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.

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.

Do you think that these people don't deserve the right to fly their flag while the gays have the right to fly theirs? I know there has been cases that some stupid and ignorant people used the flag as a symbol of racism and hate

For this very reason, I believe that it is highly important to firstly recognize the flaws in basing a society off race and then work on removing the classification of people by race to combat the existing racism throughout the world. A person should not be judged and assessed merely based off their skin color or culture, but rather by their actions and intentions. So, to group a wide variety of cultures into one category would be an unjust generalization made by social construct. For instance, African Americans are categorized by “black” in order to legitimize their exploitation as an apparently inferior race just because of skin color. This creates a system in which people are grouped based off race and ethnicity that subsequently leads to some groups having advantages, such as whites, over other minorities like Hispanics and African

However, the right to free speech is not absolute. The United State Supreme Court has ruled that the government can ban some speeches that contain “fighting words,” and words that

Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.

It violates both 1st and 14th amendment. The 1st amendment forbids the government from taking “favor” respecting one religion over another, and the 14th amendment directs citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. However, Ted Cruz believes that Muslims should not be given rights of freedom, and free speech, but should be scrutinized when they are the potentially dangerous. Therefore shall be disciplined with” arbitrary interference” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12) within their personal life. Innocent Muslims are singled out for not being guilty of terrorism.

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

Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.