As such, it is a form of assault, as you are causing pain and have no regard for an individuals well being. You completely disregard them as a person, and may cause emotional pain, such as depression or physical pain, as there may be a physical altercation that comes after you say it. This is why it should be a criminal offense, as it deters individuals from acting in a way that is dangerous towards the solidarity of society. Now of course there will be people that will disagree with this logic, on the basis that although hate speech is wrong, it should be protested and challenged, rather than criminalized. To these people I say that although this is a valid point, the ethical disparities that it casts on society are why hate speech should be a criminal offense.
This was known as the XYZ Affair. It severely increased anti-French sentiments and led to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts made it easier to deport foreigners and prohibited anyone from speaking out against the government. As a newly freed nation, the government was vulnerable and felt that the only way to protect itself on the home front was to limit the rights of the people. Therefore, these acts evidently violate the right to free speech and the right to petition.
Adams gave speeches to Americans influencing them to separate from Britain. He spoke of the wrongdoings of Britain one being the trial of Captain Preston. They felt they were wrong “for protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit”. Samuel Adams’ speeches allowed the Americans to become certain on their feelings towards Britain. Not only did the trial of Captain Preston affect the relationship between the Americans and British, but also the Coercive Acts.
Herbert J. Storing, an Associate Professor of Political Science, in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” writes, “One of the practical consequences of this institution [civil disobedience] is to divert disobedience and even revolution into the channel of law” (97). What Storing is saying is that civil disobedience will encourage people to break the laws and they will hide under civil disobedience to avoid the law. Also, civil disobedience might split society by creating disagreements with the people, and it could create a political instability. However, Storing fails to see that those who break an unjust law, as discussed above, do not avoid the law, in fact they show respect to the law as they willingly accept the consequences. By accepting the consequences, they show that they are not acting for their own interests but for society’s.
Reasons Why Hate Speech is an Issue Today Having such a diverse country is not as easy as it seems considering hate speech takes a big role in our society. Hate speech is a form of speech that intentionally offends an individual or group in our society based on what they believe in such as race, religion or other traits in a negative way. Some people confuse hate speech with free speech believing it is a way to express themselves but others do not see it that way. In essays “On Racist Speech” by Charles R. Lawrence, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok and “The Trouble at Yale” by David Cole, they explain their different views whether hate speech should be allowed or banned on campus. Even though some people value hate speech, in my eyes it should be censored on campus because hate speech is insensitive, can cause riots, and does not encourage equality.
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
Danforth's power blinds him to the truth, and prevents him from seeing the effect that his actions have on the lives of innocent people Arthur Miller argues that being fearful or damaging one's reputation is what caused people to act irrationally and against their morals, coming off as selfish and arrogant, and leading to the Salem Witch Hysteria. Through the characterization of Hale, Parris and Danforth, it is evident how excessive pride makes people unwilling to admit to their mistakes, with the fear of a reputation damage. Miller's descriptions of the frailty of arrogance, can be used as an example of how arrogance turns people against each
CONCLUSION The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America, provides a different insight of the document. Most people view this doctrine as a warning the Americans wrote to claim independence. Yet this book provides a whole new view of the document. This book related the Monroe Doctrine to the social events happening during that time. It revealed the relations between America and British and showed their common interest in preventing the re-conquest of Latin America.
Obstruction of justice and perjury were the two crimes that Clinton committed, which caused him to be impeached. Clinton did not consider the legal ramifications of lying about the affair. He was more concerned about his own motives, such as hiding the affair from his wife and daughter. This is an example of imperial presidency, because instead of following the law and constitution, Clinton broke laws in order to obtain his own goals. He is not taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, instead he is pursuing his own
Continuing, it could be inferred that Ben Franklin is using Pathos by acting as if he naturally hates the Americans and desires to ruin them. Throughout the letter, Ben Franklin sounds like a patriot of Great Britain by insulting Americans and giving them ideas of what to do to them. Although, as Franklin includes ideas in his letter, he additionally incorporates counterpoints that would make him sound like he is trying to help. For example, Franklin claims that the laws of the conqueror are just; however, it is possible that such laws could be contrary to the laws of mankind, ultimately contradicting what he first claimed. Towards the end of the letter, Ben Franklin includes a paradox by claiming that Britain should massacre the Americans as they can bring in citizens from Britain so there wouldn’t be any rebellious acts.