Hate crimes have been a long-lasting reality in the United States beginning in the nation’s history with eradicating Native American populations, slavery, and xenophobia. As a result, forty-five states have adopted hate crime laws to combat organized hate groups from preying upon the most vulnerable groups in society. Hate crime laws provide special protections to the groups that are most frequently targeted by hate crimes including African Americans, LGBT, Jews, and Muslims. Although there has been much debate over what groups should be protected by hate crime laws, evidently there are groups that have been historically targeted at a much higher rate than others. Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation.
Freedoms, Petitions, and Assembly- This amendment protects religious liberties meaning there will be no law symbolizing a national religion or persecuting somebody if they chose to follow a certain religion. Under this amendment, citizens are also guaranteed freedom of speech meaning the right to express any opinions without censorship, the right to press meaning television, newspapers, magazines and other media sources can publish truthful reports, even if they may be controversial, without the government interfering, the right to peacefully assemble meaning someone can gather together with others without fear from the government that they are a mob, the right to complain, and seek assistance of the government without fear of
The first amendment of our Constitution states that we as citizens have the right to freedom of speech, granting us the right to express ourselves as individuals without interference or constraint from the government. But does this right apply to students in your average public school?
In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech. There is a difference between having hurt feelings when two people simply differ on views of a matter and what is deemed as “dignity harms”, which is when people are deemed as unworthy of respect. Fish believes that the First Amendment is indifferent to the effects on society.
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.
Ryann k. England Mr. Dyer Ap Government October 9, 2016 The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedoms of speech, or of the press”. The freedoms of speech and of press are quintessential American rights, afford to it’s citizens through the ratification of the first amendment
The Westboro Baptist Church member are proponents of extremist Christian ideology. Their first amendment rights should not be violated solely to shield others from the Church’s message. Therein the church should be permitted to protest soldier’s funerals.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas. 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
The first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Zelezny, 2011:41). The amendment is not interpreted by the courts absolutely or literally. There are restrictions on speech and the press. Freedom of the press means, “immunity from previous restraints or
A criminal offense against a person or property motivated by a prejudice of race, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, or disability is defined as a hate crime. Imagine a person being killed in spite of the dislike for the color of the victim’s skin or their ethnicity. Or think about a criminal committing arson by setting a mosque on fire for the reason that they do not agree with the religious affiliations attached to the mosque. Both are clear examples of a hate crime, and hate crimes have been committed for hundreds of years dating back to, as Tom Strissguth (2003) identifies, 1649 (p. 104). Current hate crime laws that are in place have every good intention in mind to keep victims safe, but there are arguments from scholars
In the article “Sorry, College Kids, There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech” by The Federalist. The author John Daniel Davidson believes there is so no such thing as hate speech unless it is a crime. I agree with the author, you can say what you want unless it causes a riot or a crime is committed. The case, which involved a white teenager burning a cross made from taped-together broken chair legs in the front yard of a black family that lived across the street, went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case I believe if no one was hurt and there wasn’t any damage to the property the white teenager shouldn’t be convicted. There was an incident at UC-Berkeley where Milo Yiannopoulos went to give a speech and people began to protest against him.
The culture of America to act in violence when someone disagrees with someone, in my opinion, will never result in progress or solving said disagreement. Screaming at someone and disrespecting someone will not result in them realizing they are wrong, but conversation or peaceful protest has the potential to alter one’s ideas. An idea that struck me, instead of having written code about prohibiting hate speech, why not construct a code that requires a certain percentage of students to sign a petition avoiding that person from speaking on campus. At the same time, to counter that, if an X percentage amount of people sign something requesting for this person to speak at their campus then that person will be allowed and these people are expected
Hate is everywhere! Everywhere you turn there will always be people who hate you, your ideas, or everything. As a High School student, hate surrounds me in digital forms and physical forms. I see bullies in real life and homophobic people on my Twitter Timeline. They both share one thing in common: the first amendment. 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.