Free Speech: The Main Themes Of Hate Speech

The overall experience of the LGBTQ community in America has been a horrific experience for the past 300 plus years. Individuals who share same sex interest were oppressed, discriminated, brutalized, experimented on, and killed due to their alternative lifestyle(s). Elze (2006) confirms these allegations by mentioning...

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

Freedom is a paradox, especially in America. Everyone is free, but everyone must obey laws. In 1776, America chose to fight against her oppressor. Rather than be a single colony, America became a separate country. Today as an adolescent, America faces a new uphill battle, free speech. Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article.

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

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 idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues. 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.

Freedom of speech is an important Constitutional Issue that gives us the individual right to express the way we feel. Having freedom of speech in public, in newspapers, books, or media is a part that makes us the land of the free. Without freedom of speech we couldn’t say what we think without getting in trouble

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.

He says that society must, protect the robbed and punish the robber. He also brings up the example that what Adolf Hitler did in Germany was legal at the time. Just because it was legal, did not make it right. He continues in his essay explaining how disturbed he is over how the church is dealing with the issue. Martin Luther King Jr., makes an even stronger case as to what a person should and should not tolerate from their nation. King was in the midst of extreme injustice placed upon black citizens of America, coming not only from white citizens but from the government itself. When his letter was written, it was impossible for King to respond to the laws of the nation in a just and responsible manner, as the very nation he lived in was poisoned with corruption, racism, and violence towards

For example, Pitts refers to the school board’s decision as an act of “intellectual vandalism.” Obviously, the word “vandalism” has an extremely negative connotation, and Pitts’ decision to describe the ruling this way causes the audience to view it as a true crime against students. Undoubtedly, much of Pitts’ audience is composed of parents, so the use of the word “vandalism” also garners many feelings of anger, as the majority of parents would be truly outraged if an act of vandalism such as this were committed against their own child. Even the title of the article describes the ruling as an “assault” on all students’ basic right to learn their nation’s history. Additionally, Pitts calls the ruling “stagnant, barren and antithetical to progress.” This statement displays the regressive nature of censoring history in classrooms, and elicits similar feelings of anger and disgust from the audience. This phrase also serves as a call to action for the audience by using their newfound disdain to affect change and assist progress in this case. Furthermore, the sentiment that “censoring history is an act of cowardice” is bluntly reflected throughout the article (Pitts). The author’s outright declaration of such an attitude implies that the school board officials who approved such a measure are cowardly and unwilling to accept the elaborate yet flawed history of the United States. The fact that these officials would let their own denial interfere with students’ right to learn the complete American history is outrageous, and Leonard Pitts emphasizes this belief constantly in order to rouse the audience’s emotions. Pitts focuses his outrage on the “small-minded people” who thought it acceptable to omit the less favorable parts of history (Pitts). His direct attack on the school board officials only serves to further galvanize the audience into action against this

I will argue for speech codes on college campuses because they create more good than harm to students on college campuses. The two reasons in support of speech codes on college campuses are that hate speech is prohibitive to a learning environment and secondly that hate speech does cause harm to the person or persons being attacked. The strongest objection against speech codes on college campuses is that speech codes are illegal because they infringe upon the rights of US citizens because of the US Constitutions first amendment.

I am undecided for Freedom of Speech. There are plenty of good and bad qualities, and as much as there are pros there are also an equal amount of cons to freedom of speech. According to the first amendment, we the people have the freedom of speech which allows us the right to speak freely without censorship. Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech”. There are many pros and cons to freedom of speech, which is why I am only discussing three pros and cons, that I find that argues the opposite side, to the point it made me undecided on free speech.

Buchhandler-Raphael, Michal. "Overcriminalizing Speech." Cardozo Law Review 36.5 (2015): 1667-1737. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.

looks at how it ultimately affects society and targeted groups. There are a myriad of arguments for and against the allowance of hate speech. Some citing Democracy and the first amendment others stem from the fear of eroded freedoms of expression and have valid points, but ultimately, it corrodes society’s human rights and freedoms. The two fold issue being intolerance of the freedom of self-determination and the fact that some are born a color or culture and have no choice. Therefore, hate speech is anti-social and damaging to society as a whole. While politicians can control the masses through society, they can always manipulate their agendas using such tactics against the population.

The time in which we live is the age of communication and the speech or talking one of the important ways of communication and expression. There are different types of Speech and communicate, one of them hate speech. Hate speech means attacking a person or group based on different basis such as gander, religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality and disability. In the other hand, some of human rights treaties agree with freedom of speech or freedom of expression it could offend or disturb others so government of Countries placed laws of hate speech to avoid harms, troubles and problems. Over years Hate speech law became one of the most known laws in international law.