Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation. What distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime is motive. In order for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be motivated by the group membership of the victim. Critics of hate crime laws have argued that they are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections of free speech, association, and freedom of thought. Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V.
Reynolds defines hate speech as something that is very difficult to define because there is never going to be an idea or opinion that everybody agrees with without any contradiction. He states that hate speech is “meaningless” and is just a form of speech that people contradict. He parallels hate speech to “racist, sexist, or poor in taste”, but doesn 't explicitly say that hate speech is exactly that. Additionally, Reynolds says that fighting words are not considered hate speech, but rather an allurement to fight one-on-one. Reynolds is basically saying that there is no such of a thing as hate speech because all speech is protected whether it is homophobic, racist, sexist etc.
Words have power and not to just inspire, but to harm, separate, intimidate, and in some cases kill. Although the freedom to say what we wish is a right that every American is given, which speech should be protected and which should not? The line between offensive and harmful language is a very thin one with no real definable border. It is impossible to avoid offending everyone now and days, but attempting to harm another with words to deliberately cause emotional or psychological damage should be unacceptable. Charles Lawrence, Derek Bok, and Gwen Wilde all had interesting perspectives on the first amendment and what controversial ways it is used.
Restricting speech, in general, is not the way to go about things. If we use the same basis of seeing something that most would consider distasteful, then we would start restricting other things for the sake of restricting them. For instance, mass shootings are becoming an issue that everybody seems to have an opinion on. Most people suggest an outright ban on all guns and there's a problem with that concept. Restricting the Second Amendment strips away an innocent man's right to wield a weapon for personal protection.
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. Censorship can have positive effects on society; however, it hinders freedom of speech, can insight dictatorship, and oppress individuals. The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc.
Many were persecuted for even saying something that does not correspond to their beliefs. As well as, they were also killed because the ruler of that country didn’t like that type of religion or want total control of their citizens.” Freedom of religion is severely restricted in Muslim countries”(New world Encyclopedia, 2017). Freedom of Religion is decreases, which means that there are countries that oppose Freedom of Religion. “ China and Vietnam, although they don’t govern the economy they still oppose religion”( Reese, 2015). “ Freedom of Religion is a human right that needs greater respect around the world” ( Reese, 2015).
The destruction of property as a necessary element in the struggle for social, political, and economic justice is unacceptable and works to further discredit the protestors and cause. The destruction of property to bring attention to a cause does not excuse the actions of the protestors. Although there may be injustice being done by an institution it does not allow groups to act illegally. The injustices being done by a group or institution does not merit the need for further violence and harm. Advancements are made through negotiations and other forms of protest rather than the destruction of property.
Further, it is also important to understand that censorship is not only an after effect of the act of expression. It should also be seen in the absence of the speech-act. It is a process which “encompasses all socially structured proscriptions or prescriptions which inhibit or prohibit dissemination of ideas, information, images, and other messages through a society 's channels of communication whether these obstructions are secured by political, economic, religious, or other systems of authority. It includes both overt and covert proscriptions and prescriptions.” (Beat Muller 227) In democracy which constitutionally enshrines freedom of speech, censorship constitutes paranoia wherein the authority both mandates free speech and later forfeits if it is found to be threatening. Foucault, in The Courage of Truth opines that parrhesia (truth- telling) which includes both the right to express one’s opinion, and the courage to go against the opinions of others is crucial
Criticism of a religion means insult of the religion but in prohibiting the insult of a religion means prohibiting all types of enquiry and evaluation in relating to religion. But if we prohibit criticism we extremely violate the freedom of speech of the
In other words civil disobedience can be defined as the shape of protest in which the protestors violate a law purposely. In actual they disobey the law by protesting against it, for example, isolation or draft laws, yet here and there they disobey different laws which they discover unobjectionable most common examples are trespass or movement laws. Most activists who perform common defiance are carefully peaceful, and firmly acknowledge lawful punishments.