Hate Speech: The Freedom Of Speech

Shaming affect the pride of criminals and when combined with other punitve measure can be effective, shaming punish criminals psychologically. The fact is no punishment will be suitable for all individuals, as not even capital punishment is proven to be a deterrence to all. I think shaming will be especially beneficial in punishment of sexual

Those examples can be fixed with time, what can not be fixed with time is people 's emotional state and the reputation our country has built for themselves. If hate speech is banned from the U.S constitution people over time will adjust and it will allow for others affected to finally breath, live a normal life, and no longer be pressured by community members hateful remarks. Hate speech should no longer be protected by the U.S constitution because hate speech in itself promotes hateful actions and expressions, the negative effects hate speech has on people is widespread and laws around the world have proven effective to limit internet-based hate speech. The banning of hate speech is extremely important for the future of our country and the people living long after this current generation passes. The more people promote hate speech the further our country gets from being a peaceful, and loveable place to live and grow up.

The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances. When pregnant women were sentenced to death they could be spared for their the lives of their unborn children.

To argue this idea, Baker dismisses the concept of speech as an illocutionary act. Instead, he claims that the purpose of speech, even if intended to injure, is solely “instrumental,” providing that the injury is a consequence of speech rather than an integral component of its utterance (Waldron 2012, 166). Incidentally, Baker approves of certain speech limitations, distinguishing these from other speech acts as bearing grave and imminent material consequences. Within these limitations he includes the harm to an individuals autonomy, as well as pre-existing exceptions like obscenity and sedition (Waldron 2012, 145). Contrary to these aspects, Baker views hate speech as a facilitator to potential material consequences, who's utterance alone does not present immediate effects.

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.

It would be simplistic to pin police brutality and racial violence on racist actors - that would imply that institutional racism could be remedied by removing such officials from the system. However, acknowledging these ingrained biases and understanding their impact is crucial to recognizing that the system is itself inherently biased, and that a neutral and objective institution of law enforcement can only be created when the emphasis is placed not on racists, but on the construct of racism itself. Ingrained racial biases clearly impede rational decision-making

If you were a victim during a riot occurring would you want to give revenge? Would you have done something about it? Honestly, revenge is not a good thing to do, it will only provoke worse things on occurring in the way. But also revenge is not a bad thing to do because that person wants justice into what had happened, they want equality; therefore there is no right or wrong answer. The ideas in the reading “The forgotten victim from Florence and Normandie” by Steve Lopez are agreeable.

Therefore, this is an outdated claim, due to our justice system changing and adapting to public beliefs. There may be a few wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, however that does not make it cause more harm than good. In any system there are flaws, we cannot disregard all the good the justice system does. Although this system has flaws like all others, it is what safeguards our society's

Some may argue that public shaming towards an offender is not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. As long as sentences influence deterrence, “sentences involving public shaming are constitutional” (Beato). Judges have the right to use public shaming to deter others from committing the same crime.

Censoring speech will cause less people around the world to not get upset because of different religions. Freedom of speech would be more respectful. Also, it would not seem that Americans were abusing their right of free

Since the September 11th, 2001, the nation as well as the world has changed drastically. The curtain blocking the first world from the things going on in the Middle-East has risen. Stereotypes have been created and are often enacted against the innocent and fellow neighbors. But this is not the only instance of labels; labels have been placed on just about everything and often seem hurtful. Of course, these labels have helped in minute ways by preventing a small percentage of attacks and establishing a mental safeguard.

However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power.

Should hate speech be prevented? Hate can provoke violent incidents which are capable of having a stronger impact on victims than ordinary crimes. For example, they send a message to communities that these communities should be denied the right to be part of society. Since hate speech may promote hate crimes, the two concepts are interlinked. Responses to hate crime would call for changes in legislation and training in the criminal justice system aimed at improving responses to hate crimes; such as, investigation, prosecution, and prevention of hate crimes.

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.

In today’s world, hate speech can be found with ease; you can witness it over coffee, a celebrity you follow can share hateful tweets, or a public demonstration can get out of hand. With hate seemingly running rampant, we must question what actions to take in order to resolve this issue, and how to do so without undermining the First Amendment. Hate speech, despite some negative effects, does not need further legislation enacted, as it is already addressed by several laws in place. The eradication of hate speech requires a larger social change before we can introduce further legislation. While the First Amendment protects the fundamental right of free speech, there are exceptions to this right that are currently regulated.