The KKK rallying in the streets, and offensive posters being put up in college campuses. Things like this are going on around the world. Free speech is being used to hurt those of different sexes, races, ethnicities. It’s being called hate speech. It has been going on throughout history and has been the basis of the biggest and bloodiest war ever WW2. Although banning speech goes against the first amendment, hate speech has negative effects on the people its directed at. Hate speech has been linked to negative health effects, it promotes hate crimes, and it is emotionally damaging to the people of those races, genders, and ethnicities hearing it. Hate speech has been linked to causing negative health effects on the people its targeted at. For example, when racial hate …show more content…
I’ll admit that in order to debate one’s perspective they sometimes need to be able to say offensive things. If hate speech is restricted how would the KKK express, their opinion to their followers and the world. I’m not supporting the KKK but they should have the right to voice their beliefs. However outside of debate words like the N word and fag are very hurtful to those people or groups hearing them. For example, “A black man employed by a Minnesota trucking company had racial slurs directed at him and was the target of graffiti written by fellow workers.” (Smeltzer, Terry L. LeapLarry R) Its acts such as these that make the case for restricting hate speech in America. Hate speech has been linked to causing health problems, advocates for hate crimes, and causes emotional instability in the person receiving the insult. Hate crimes and hate speech have gone on throughout history with Hitler and the Jews, America and African slaves, and more recently white Africans and black Africans. We need to restrict hate speech even if it means having to change the first amendment of the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In the story “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” by Nat Hentoff was a very good argumentative passage. Hentoff argues that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how offensive it is interpreted by others. Dough Hann abused his freedom of speech when he blurted out “Fuck you niggers” to black students at Brown University. A student asked Hann to stop screaming and Hann yelled “What are you a faggot?” Next, Hann noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm and asked “What are you a Jew?” and shouted, “Fucking Jew!”
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.
While the freedom of speech is protected under the constitution, there are several types of speech that are restricted by the government. In general, if the speech is found to cause harm or threaten the safety of the public, it is restricted. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.” (Volokh, E., 2015). There are restrictions placed on fighting words, defamation, threats, and false statements of
Currently, the United State’s criterion on Speech includes, “obscenity, fraud, child pornography, harassment, incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising, copyright or patent rights” (Gaudefroy 3). However, speech involving discriminatory words or racial intentions are protected by the law. To avoid instances that degrade the minority group, stricter rules need to be enforced on the delicate topic. Restrictions on hate speech should include usage of “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and conspiracy-laden language” (Gaudefroy 3). Efforts to restrict these types of beliefs would create a more safe and equal society for all individuals.
In 1982 three books written by three very different women; Maya Angelou, Anne Frank, and Doris Day were placed in cages at the American Booksellers Association's annual convention (Zalusky np). The display called attention to the practice of book banning. In his book Banned Books: Challenging Our Freedom to Read, Robert Doyle wrote: Up until that day when they witnessed the display of books behind bars, the members of the professional association - the authors, publishers, booksellers, librarians, and journalists attending the convention - were all unaware that so many books and such familiar titles were removed from bookstore and library shelves because an individual or group thought the printed matter unfit for others to read. To the spectators the implication was clear - it was readers who were being caged, not just books. (qtd.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Some people in today’s time would argue the first amendment is one of the most important listed in the Bill of Rights. Many forms of speech are protected by the first amendment that one wouldn’t think would be such as flag burning and “adult videos”. Over the years there have been many different court cases that have debated and fought the forms of speech that are protected. Many people in society treat speech differently and this is given in the United States because there are such diverse groups throughout the nation.
Although hate speech is bigoted, hate-mongering, and can potentially lead to hate crimes, it should still be considered free speech. If citizens of the United States are not allowed to be verbal about their beliefs, whether or not they are offensive and hateful, then there is no use in allowing free speech. Placing limitations on free speech contradicts the First Amendment, therefore making it inaccurate and useless.
The discussion of hate crime has been very delicate over the past few months, from ISIS to police brutality. In this paper situations involving hate crime will be discussed such as the background; history of hate crime like the holocaust; special groups and genders that get “hated” on such as blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and Jews; examples of hate crime; prominent figures like Donald Trump and his anti- Muslim and anti-immigrant policies as well as news pieces of hate crime; groups for and against other races like the black lives matter movement; statistics of hate crime and hate groups in the U.S.; the argument that
Hate Crime Does hating someone make us a better person? Since I am Hispanic and bisexual I have dealt with hate crime. People stare and talk behind my back and some just tell me to my face that I’m “disgusting” or “lazy”. I also recently got the news that a close friend of mine was starting the process of having a sex change from male to female.
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. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate
As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other = = =
A bit of both? Well, it’s not your fault because that’s exactly what half the world’s human population is coping with right now. For starters, Censorship is that omnipresent power which restricts contents on a webpage for being harmful, objectionable, obscene, ethnically provoking or unlawful by keeping a track of your account activity, your posts, your comments, uploads and pictures. Censorship works on many levels.