Hate Speech: The Freedom Of Speech

The subject of hate crime and the validity of hate crime laws is a sensitive matter to many people. As a result, people tend to be divided into two groups, the first one is supportive of the laws and the second group opposes them. The laws of hate crimes might appear to be the solution; however they are not, therefore they should be revoked.

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. Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think

Hate crime laws are defined as a state law that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so. However, in 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This made it easier to prosecute criminals while also adding in gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Everyone defines hate speech differently. I define hate speech as anything that incites aggression regarding one person or a group of people. Now a day’s people uses free speech as a defense for saying anything but discriminating someone is not free speech. Hate speech against minority is discrimination which has no place in our society. Constitution is color blind. Skin color does not make any difference; it is racism which lies in the eyes of beholder. Hate speech suppress the voice of minority so that they are unable to exchange the ideas

In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech. There is a difference between having hurt feelings when two people simply differ on views of a matter and what is deemed as “dignity harms”, which is when people are deemed as unworthy of respect. Fish believes that the First Amendment is indifferent to the effects on society.

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. While yes, it would be difficult to enact a law limiting hateful speech, and such a plan would initially meet with heavy opposition, it is not impossible to protect citizens of our country from violence and the normalization of violent

It has changed in the sense that there isn’t a total disregard for human rights or laws against specific races, but we are still far from equality and social justice. These vicious discriminatory acts are still occurring and at greater frequency. Citizens all around aren’t demonstrating respect towards those who might be different, often focusing more on our differences rather than our similarities. Many would argue that our current president is having a negative influence, basically the most powerful man in the free country, so that doesn’t set a good example. I wish we had peace and this culture of hate would die out, but unfortunately it is discouraging to think that many in the country share low opinions of those that might be different than them. If racism can’t change over the amount of years we've already lived through, is it even possible to make a positive change in the

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

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.

If we were to continue allowing hate speech where do we draw the line with hateful actions. In America, as a first world country, people should feel safe with who they are. In the case of the Westboro Baptist church, they protested funeral after funeral of a veteran after veteran(Mears). This caused people morning at the funerals to feel unsafe when they are at their weakest. A consensus along the side of banning speech is that we are to civil to have hate speech. “this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society”(McElwee). Because of this people shouldn 't be up to someone 's genetics to decide how they should be treated modern society. The consensus from the other side is all speech should be protected, but only blatant offensive actions should be banned. Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected. “Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object”(mighty constitutional opposites). that is what separates the united states from a fascist country in that they protect all forms of speech. On the topic of hateful actions, only actions such as direct threats should be prosecuted and general hatred should be allowed. “The spectrum of hateful expression is broad, encompassing acts that are clearly illegal — such as firebombing a mosque

In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.

Before it is possible to find a solution to the problem, it is necessary to get to know the problem better. By definition, a hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. According to FBI data, 60% of hate crimes are motivated by racial bias, which are composed of mostly anti-black crimes, followed by anti-white crimes, then anti-hispanic crimes. 20% of hate crimes were against religious groups, with anti-semitic crimes being most common, with crimes against Muslims following close behind. Crimes involving sexuality took up 18% of hate crimes, with gay men being the main target, and the remaining 2% of hate crimes were committed based on

A criminal offense against a person or property motivated by a prejudice of race, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, or disability is defined as a hate crime. Imagine a person being killed in spite of the dislike for the color of the victim’s skin or their ethnicity. Or think about a criminal committing arson by setting a mosque on fire for the reason that they do not agree with the religious affiliations attached to the mosque. Both are clear examples of a hate crime, and hate crimes have been committed for hundreds of years dating back to, as Tom Strissguth (2003) identifies, 1649 (p. 104). Current hate crime laws that are in place have every good intention in mind to keep victims safe, but there are arguments from scholars

Hate crimes are crimes that are typically provoked by certain individuals who are biased against others race, religion or sexual orientation. These incidents are usually committed with a great deal of violence such as physical assault, property damage and bullying. Although many strategies of how to prevent such crimes from occurring have developed, not much has been completed to test these theories. Hate crimes are frequently caused by a mixture of emotions that are extremely complicated to identify. However, according to the National Crime Prevention Council many of those who partake in such crimes are those who lack self-respect for themselves and find a need to put other individuals down in order to balance their feelings. They also believe

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.