Freedom Of Speech Vs Hate Speech Essay

1304 Words6 Pages
When the founders wrote the first amendment, it was to protect the freedom of speech, to protect people’s freedom of speech of any kind. The first amendment should protect all forms of speech even if they might be hateful to some, this type of speech should be protected because speech is one of the few ways that their voices can be heard. Because people express their opinions in different forms and share what they believe indifferently, and whether they are wrong or right, and it’s their right. Their right to say what they want to say and each person can decide if they choose to ignore it or listen to it. Similarly, when the protesters were protesting near the funeral, they stayed within their boundaries and Snyder could have chosen to…show more content…
Most people label the speeches that they find themselves disagreeing with as a hate speech to hush the over the side. But in the end hate speech is a normal speech like any other type of speech. According to Kenan: “Not just the banning of hate speech but the very categorization of an argument or a sentiment as ‘hate speech’ can be problematic for the democratic process. I am in no doubt that some speech is designed to promote hatred. And I accept that certain arguments – like the direct incitement of violence – should indeed be unlawful. But the category ‘hate speech’ has come to function quite differently from prohibitions on incitement to violence. It has become a means of rebranding obnoxious political arguments as immoral and so beyond the boundaries of accepted reasonable debate. It makes certain sentiments illegitimate, thereby disenfranchising those who hold such views”. As long as the speech is not promoting violence, or is not one of the types of speeches that are not protected by the first amendment, then there’s no reason for it not to be heard and be debated with the
Open Document