ipl-logo

Hate Speech: The Definition Of Free Speech

1546 Words7 Pages

Hate is everywhere! Everywhere you turn there will always be people who hate you or your ideas. Hate surrounds everyone in digital forms and physical forms. Online Bullies and real-life homophobes are everywhere. 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 controlling free speech.
There are many different perspectives on the issue of limiting free 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 …show more content…

He defines hate speech in a variety of terms. He says that it is “hate-filled” and “provokes a dangerous environment.” Zafar says hate speech “engenders prejudice” and use the example of the holocaust support how “free speech”, which was actually hate speech, helped give rise to one of the “ugliest moments in human history.” Additionally, Zafar adds that the “divisive speech” contributed to the persecution of many ethnic communities. Zafar says that hate speech is an “ insult” to the concept of the free speech. He relates "hate speech" to the punishment and destruction of communities and the systematic killing of innocent people. His definition is more specific and related to how hate speech affected people. While interviewing fellow classmates about what they define as hate speech there were many similar definitions. Many agreed that hate speech is anything that attacks someone based on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Some said that hate speech makes the world a scary place because people are so harsh. This proved to support Zafar’s notion that hate speech promotes an unsafe place. No one said that there was no such thing as hate speech. Everyone had a clear definition in mind, which called into question Reynolds’s claim regarding the idea that hate speech did not …show more content…

He says that the government should not be needing to put restrictions on the first amendment. People should know to not be ignorant without there being a law. He uses real-world examples to show that he is against limiting free speech. Zafar discusses the Pastor McConnell case and believes that the pastor should not have been arrested for his speeches. Zafar acknowledges the defamatory things McConnell said about Muslims and affirms that he held the right to say those things. He states that the pastor did not break the rules of the first amendment. According to Zafar, the pastor should not have to face any legal discipline. By relating his opinion to the McConnell case it is very easy to see that Zafar is against limiting free speech. ***maybe add interview

Show More
Related

  • How Does This Chapter Support Toobin's Overall Point Of The Supreme Court

    1331 Words  | 6 Pages

    “By the mid nineties, the issue couldn’t exclude religious speakers from the list” The new look of religious cases allowed for people to go against the law of religious freedom. - pg 113 “But the stat denied a request heightened the differences between them.” The law of freedom of speech works for many terrible groups of people, making them question if they are actually doing the right thing. Support:

    Read More

  • Supreme Court's Ruling In Favor Of Phelps Essay

    445 Words  | 2 Pages

    What are the arguments that support the Supreme Court 's ruling in favor of Phelps? The arguments that supported the supreme court are that they were attending a public event, they were protesting from a far distance that was approved by the state of maryland, the had organized the protest with the local police department and did not interrupt the service. What are some arguments in support of Snyder, the soldier 's father who claims he was harmed by the Phelps ' protest?

    Read More

  • First Amendment Rights: The Westboro Baptist Church

    355 Words  | 2 Pages

    First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers.

    Read More

  • How Did The Alien And Sedition Acts Violate The Constitution

    566 Words  | 3 Pages

    President John Adams put the new Alien and Sedition Acts into play and the Democratic Republicans thought the new acts were unconstitutional. This leads to the big question. Did the Alien and Sedition Acts violate the Constitution? The answer is yes. The Alien and Sedition Acts violate several amendments of the Constitution.

    Read More

  • On Racist Speech: Brown Vs. The Board Of Education

    766 Words  | 4 Pages

    He aims to expound to the reader why hate speech shouldn't be included in the freedom of speech, at least on university premises, while reassuring the audience that he understands that the freedom of expression is highly essential and difficult to restrict in terms of hate speech. According to his statements, students who are subjected to racist instruction could even consider filing a lawsuit "on behalf of Blacks whose right to an equal education is denied by a university's failure to ensure a non-discriminatory educational climate" (Charles 18). To help the audience grasp the gravity of the issue, Charles chooses to explain how hate speech might escalate within legal

    Read More

  • The Slippery Slope

    316 Words  | 2 Pages

    Freedom of speech is one of the corner stones of American society and is defended vigorously. One huge reason of this defense is the argument where if one small part of freedom of speech is violated or diminished, eventually that will be enough grounds to essentially ban freedom of speech outright. The Slippery Slope. This argument is, at its core, a broad assumption and can be refuted. For one, it is possible for a government to reduce the freedom of speech and go no further, usually due to reasons where what you say could threaten national security and the public welfare in general.

    Read More

  • Annotated Bibliography On Overcriminalizing Speech

    1204 Words  | 5 Pages

    The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

    Read More

  • Hate Speech College Campuses

    1116 Words  | 5 Pages

    Lawrence III I believes that face-to-face confrontation should be counted as fighting words. (Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, pages 174-177). He describes that hate speech shouldn’t be considered under the first amendment because the person committing this act is not verbally speaking aloud to invite a discussion or rational argument but to instead “injure the victim”(Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, page 175). I believe in the idea of what Lawrence is conveying because when I take a utilitarian approach and try to weigh the benefits for human society I realize that fighting and violence don't amount to much forward progress and advancement. The fact being that no hate speech ever has amounted to any good in history.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Waldron The Harm In Hate Speech Summary

    1125 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Harm In Hate Speech Jeremy Waldron is a University Professor at the New York University School of Law where he has written and published in the area of legal positivism and political theory. He writes his books and articles on theories of rights, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and on democracy endorsing speech law legislation (Biography). In his book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” Waldron claims that people’s dignity should be protected against hate speech and needs to be a part of hate speech legislation. In chapter 5, “Protecting dignity or Protection from Offense,” he insists that hate speech laws should protect someone’s dignity from verbal assault but not from them being offended, saying that offense has nothing to do with

    Read More

  • Charles Lawrence Racist Speech Summary

    770 Words  | 4 Pages

    Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Should Hate Be A Crime By James B. Jacobs

    565 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this article, Jacobs successfully makes his argument by remaining objective, appealing more toward the ethos and logos of the reader, and limiting emotional language. Jacobs aims his article toward lawmakers and voters. Motives are subjective and based on many factors; therefore, Jacobs argues that basing hate crime off of motive does not only create hardships but also flaws. He continues his argument by looking at rights given to the people from the First Amendment. According to the First Amendment, people possess many freedoms including the freedom of speech; however, Jacobs argues how hate crimes

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Free Speech Follies By Stanley Fish

    103 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Robin Lakoff Hate Speech Analysis

    151 Words  | 1 Pages

    In Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech”, Lakoff claims that not everyone is able to understand hate speech because not everyone goes through it, or they don't find it a big deal because it doesn't happen to them. Someone might claim that they know that hate speech doesn't happen that often but, what is hate speech? Hate speech is to “promote violence” and it is “created by people who are a majority of the population; directed toward people who are a part of a minority population.” (bsu.edu). The First Amendment allows people to speak what they want, and express themselves.

    Read More

  • Should Hate Speech And Should It Be Protected Under The First Amendment?

    285 Words  | 2 Pages

    Is hate speech free speech and should it be protected under the First Amendment? Hate speech is speech that is used to verbally assault a single individual or a group of people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. While some countries such as France, Canada, Chile, Germany, etc. have passed laws in an attempt to combat or minimize hate speech, the United States guarantees full protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, which was ratified in 1789 and adopted in 1791, essentially forbids Congress to create any laws curtailing the freedom of speech, freedom of press, or the right of citizens to peaceably assemble and seek assistance from the Government for a redress of grievances. Since the adoption of the First Amendment, Americans have consciously, continuously, and contentedly exercised their right.

    Read More

  • Freedom Of Speech In College Essay

    905 Words  | 4 Pages

    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. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.

    Read More

More about Hate Speech: The Definition Of Free Speech

Open Document