I believe that restricting hate speech can influence violence because the public would learn to care for one another. Although the first amendment protects freedom of speech, there should be limitations. The hate speech can turn into dangerous speech as it raises bigger ethical issues because it is conveyed publicly and loudly. Ethical issues affect us all in society not just the person being victimized. If we had restrictions in how people express themselves about others, people will tend to be more careful about what they say or publish on social media. They will be more careful about what they communicate with others and they will be more considerate about other individual’s feelings. What society needs to understand is that hateful words
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.
Currently, the United State’s criterion on Speech includes, “obscenity, fraud, child pornography, harassment, incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising, copyright or patent rights” (Gaudefroy 3). However, speech involving discriminatory words or racial intentions are protected by the law. To avoid instances that degrade the minority group, stricter rules need to be enforced on the delicate topic. Restrictions on hate speech should include usage of “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and conspiracy-laden language” (Gaudefroy 3). Efforts to restrict these types of beliefs would create a more safe and equal society for all individuals.
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.
A further consideration that must be taken into account while evaluating this case is that of time, place, and manner restrictions. Such restrictions are a sort of measuring stick when it comes to these types of freedom of speech issues. If a group or individual does not comply with time, place, and manner restrictions, their actions are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, if these restrictions are adhered to, a party has the constitutional right to voice their viewpoints.
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.
First, there are those who argue that hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment, no matter the circumstance. Stakeholders for this position tend to include Conservative politicians, judges, and lawyers. This group stresses the idea that any individual rights that’s bestowed onto the people by the Constitution should never be tampered with. However, the opposing side are those who believe the First Amendment should not protect hate speech in any circumstances. Those involved in this side of the argument tend to be Democrats, Socialists, few Moderates, and college students.
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.”
Restricting the use of Racial Profiling Imagine going through Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and being stopped and treated unfairly just because of the color of your skin and the way you dress. Imagine being stopped at a red light for no particular reason besides “driving while black” or being Hispanic and getting asked to show the officer your “papers” or a green card. Racial profiling has always been prominent, but is very unjust and a violation of people’s civil rights. Racial profiling should be performed in certain medical circumstances, such as giving out precautions about a disease that’s predominant amongst a certain race, rather than knowingly acting on a whim or irrational fear.
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.
Before it is possible to find a solution to the problem, it is necessary to get to know the problem better. By definition, a hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. According to FBI data, 60% of hate crimes are motivated by racial bias, which are composed of mostly anti-black crimes, followed by anti-white crimes, then anti-hispanic crimes. 20% of hate crimes were against religious groups, with anti-semitic crimes being most common, with crimes against Muslims following close behind.
Although hate speech is bigoted, hate-mongering, and can potentially lead to hate crimes, it should still be considered free speech. If citizens of the United States are not allowed to be verbal about their beliefs, whether or not they are offensive and hateful, then there is no use in allowing free speech. Placing limitations on free speech contradicts the First Amendment, therefore making it inaccurate and useless.
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.
Words do not directly lead to violence, in fact words are often used to settle disputes in a more constructive way than violence. One’s inability to accept the views of another person is not the fault of the latter, but the former. Fighting words can be qualified as words that are not necessary to communication of information or opinions. The Fighting Words Doctrine allows the government to favoritize and discriminate citizens, which is exactly the opposite of what the First Amendment is all about. The First Amendment keeps the government from limiting speech, especially unpopular opinions because the views of the minority are just as important as the views of the
It is hard to separate the cases between instrumental aggression and bias motivation. I think not every bias motivation reflected as hate crime or breach the hate speech law. In some time you have the ability to like some one or not, so hate crime law could make many problems **** instigate retaliatory attacks. In conclusion, society would be better with more control and more law to live in an organized and pleasant community of humanity. Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them.