The culture of America to act in violence when someone disagrees with someone, in my opinion, will never result in progress or solving said disagreement. Screaming at someone and disrespecting someone will not result in them realizing they are wrong, but conversation or peaceful protest has the potential to alter one’s ideas. An idea that struck me, instead of having written code about prohibiting hate speech, why not construct a code that requires a certain percentage of students to sign a petition avoiding that person from speaking on campus. At the same time, to counter that, if an X percentage amount of people sign something requesting for this person to speak at their campus then that person will be allowed and these people are expected
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
The teaching tolerance website was easy to explore and once you open the website you will find different hate crime-related subjects. Some of the couple subjects were bullying, civil rights, and immigration. There are not complete articles on the website but rather abstracts of stories that were written in books. Most of these curricula only give you an abstract of what the author wrote, they give you an idea of what the story is about and if you are interested in the story you must buy the book, CD, or DVD in order to listen or write the complete story. There are a few curricula on the website that gives you a PDF of the story, in some of these stories they also provide a video highlighting the story.
“The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority is a person’s conscience” (Lee 57). Many people will silence their opinions because they are not conventional. However, if nobody spoke up in situations about things like acts of racism, the world would be even more abhorrent than it already is. Everybody has opinions and those ideas should be recognized in a tasteful way, free of hatred and bitterness.
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.
Conversely, under hate crime legislation it is clear to see that the prosecution of hate crimes further divides society by reinforcing the marginalisation of minority groups. Advocates with ideologies akin to this state that all violent crimes are the result of the offender’s absolute contempt for the victim of the hate crime. In such cases like this, all crimes are hate crimes and if no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly than others for the same crime based on who the victim is, a situation arises where different offenders charged with the same offence are treated unequally under the law which inadvertently creates discrimination, prejudices and unfairness in society.
The USA government crime data document seven types of antireligious hate crimes: anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Islamic, anti-other religious group, anti-atheism ,agnosticism and etc. In our analyses, the data for anti-multi religions were omitted because of the small number of cases and the difficulty of interpretation. Due to the limitations in the data set, information about the offenders was not available. Therefore, chi-square goodness of-fit tests were used to test whether there was a difference in the incidence of hate crimes committed toward the six religious groups after adjusting the case numbers by subgroup populations. The results revealed differences of this type that varied across the 13-year period.
Gender, age, and race still play a very prevalent role in our society. Many individuals continue to think the ideas of white supremacists play no role in the United States, but individuals such as Dylann Roof, prove them wrong. Innocent people lose their life for having the right to believe what they want to, and overall pay the ultimate price. At the rate in which Americans experience hate crimes, citizens may soon enter war with themselves.
There’s going to be different charges for every case. The charges are going to be different. Punishments for hate crimes are going to depend on the case and how bad the crime is. There is going to be different charges for every case, but it’s going to depend on what the person did and what evidence they find. Steven Sandstorm and Gary Eye, of Kansas City, Missouri were sentenced multiple life sentences because of the “racially- motivated murder of William L. McCay.”
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. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate
The definition of a hate crime is referred to as a “a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability”. "Hate Crime. Hate crime has existed all through history and are most likely going to exist for a while. When some people wakes up in the morning and began to start their day they don 't even think “ Will I be the victim of a hate crime today” or “Is someone going to attack me today for who I love”. Statistic that from from the the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs or (NCAVP), say that their data suggests that 20-25% of lesbian and gay people experience hate crimes within their lifetimes this
Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article. David Bok’s reasoning for how racist speech can be solved is flawed.
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.
I think that it really depends on what type of language they are using. If they are using derogatory language or cursing, then I don 't think its racial segregation to stop them from doing that. But if they are just talking and not saying anything rudem then I don 't really see a problem. If they are doing it on the bases that the language sounds too diffrent from standard english, then I would consider it racial segregation because thats just the way that they talk and noone can change that.
As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other = = =