Free Speech Vs Hate Speech Essay

The grey area can be seen between two different sectors: one of which is free speech and the other being unconstitutional with the question being what is the best way to deal with it. On one side, there are thinkers like James Bank, Sheffield Hallam University department of Law, who argued in “Regulating Hate Speech Online” that while the entire subject of hate speech is condemnable, it is nearly impossible to regulate.He believes this because, “The multi-jurisdictionality of the Internet has undermined states efforts to place geographical demarcations onto cyberspace … [as] European efforts to harmonise national laws have been undermined by the USA’s commitment to the First Amendment” (Banks 238). It is understandable that with the internet, no single group can assume responsibility or ownership over it, but then people still try to do so. An example that illustrates Bank’s point is the case Yahoo!,

because the French organizations had no piece of evidence that proved intentional threat to others (Court of Appeals). Therefore, Yahoo! won is due to the Nazi memorabilia was considered illegal and free speech, depending on location. It creates a new problem in categorizing hate speech as with the global connectivity of the internet, online speech cannot be applied to a country 's laws. On the side of regulation is Laura Beth Nielsen, professor at Northwestern and at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in, “The Case of Restricting Free Speech” that free speech is often ruled upon balancing rights and dangers. This causes problems as it is illegal to panhandle in public yet a woman walking down the street can be verbally assaulted or any minority group can be verbally attacked and cannot fight back. Although, she makes her argument for speech made in person the same ideologies can be applied online as people verbally assaulted online suffer the same fate. This illustrates the problem with online speech as either side provides a