Pros And Cons Of Hate Crime Laws

Pros and Cons of Hate Crime Laws 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.

Hate crime What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is an underlying motivation based on the victim’s group membership. There has been much debate over the constitutionality of hate crime laws and which groups (if any) should be protected by such legislation. Those against hate crime laws argue that it is a violation of First Amendment protections of free, association, and freedom of thought. The Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of thought is implied by the First Amendment in R.A.V. v. St. Paul which those against hate crime laws argue makes such laws unconstitutional.

Are Hate Crime Laws useful or Should they be Revoked? 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. Let’s start first with the legal definition of hate crimes.

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.

Introduction Colin Ferguson was convicted of the December 7, 1993 shooting of 25 people aboard the Long Island Rail Road commuter train out of Penn Station at Merillon Avenue station in Garden City, New York, New York. He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers: Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee, and Mike O'Connor. Ferguson's trial was notable for a number of unusual developments, including his firing of his defense counsel and insisting on representing himself and examining himself as a live witness. Before the trial, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby attempted to argue that Ferguson was driven to mental illness through years of living in an oppressive and racist society.

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.

Hate speech—words or symbols targeted at a particular group or person that attack or intimidate them based upon sex, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender—has recently become extremely controversial, especially in regards to college campuses. Although merely visual or verbal behaviors, hate speech can indirectly and directly cause physical and psychological harms. Philosophers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic delve into the negative impact of hate speech in their essay “Words That Wound”, detailing exactly how supposed expressions of freedom of speech can detrimentally impact its victims. Such dire consequences thus call for targeted and threating speech to be banned in certain spaces in order to sustain a safe environment for the majority of people.

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.

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 act of profiling is defined as the analysis of a person’s psychological and behavioral characteristics to help make generalizations/ assumptions about a person’s intent and or capability. An assumption is defined as something that has been accepted as being true without substantial evidence. These assumptions, then lead to what is known as racial profiling, which refers to a sort of discriminatory way in which an individual is targeted for suspicion in a crime based solely on that individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Why make assumptions about a person without having substantial evidence? Why violate and/or humiliate an entire group of people based on an assumption? Having actual and factual data that has been analyzed

The Social Benefits of Protecting Hate Speech and Exposing Sources of Prejudice." Res Publica (13564765), vol. 22, no. 2, May 2016, pp. 225-242. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11158-015-9282-1. Stanley, Jay. “Civil Rights Movement Is a Reminder That Free Speech Is There to Protect the Weak.”

-Hate crimes, are not justifiable the reason why is because they’re, ‘bias.’ The definition of a ‘Hate Crime’ on page 604 is defined as “a bias related crime, committed against an individual that is motivated by bias regarding race, color, religion, disability, and sexual orientation.” Committing a crime just because of the color, sexuality, religion, or disability of a person isn’t justifiable. The reason why it’s not justifiable is because, the person committing the hate crime wouldn’t want someone else, to commit such an act towards themself.

The U.S. later legalized it in 2009. This act augmented penalties for crimes perpetrated against one’s ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, age, disability, sexual identity, or sexual preference. Today, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is “effectively recognizing the importance of prosecuting violence motivated by racism or other bias-related crimes” (2). The act serves as evidence of progress towards equality. The government is saying that all men are created equal and should be treated in the same manner, and if one chooses to oppose this proposition, they will encounter strict

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.

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.