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. There is a difference between having hurt feelings when two people simply differ on views of a matter and what is deemed as “dignity harms”, which is when people are deemed as unworthy of respect. Fish believes that the First Amendment is indifferent to the effects on society.
A wise man named Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, the color of a person’s skin should not be judged on how we treat each other. The color of a person’s skin should not be a bother in public. However, there has been many histories where the blacks were treated unnormal because of their skin color. Brent Staples strongly proved something mystical about the world on how many people react to black people in public spaces. He proved it by using ethos, pathos, and logos on his essay he wrote called, “Black Men and Public Space.” Staples who is six feet two inches with a beard approached that several people, especially women, sees him as a mugger, a rapist, or worse.
Since, it isn’t justified for America to give us this right of speech, when they knock us down for using it. The Black Lives Matter Movement is proof of this, they protest over and over but the government doesn’t want to take responsibility or change for the better of the community. As a community we need to see actions taking place, not only just words. I think they are right for opposing the dominant culture, since it is going to take a lot of work for America to socially change, and we have stick up for what we believe in or them would never been any change in America. America has become a better nation with time, protests and the power of a counter culture always existing to fight for equality, no matter the gender and race.
Hate is everywhere! Everywhere you turn there will always be people who hate you, your ideas, or everything. As a High School student, hate surrounds me in digital forms and physical forms. I see bullies in real life and homophobic people on my Twitter Timeline. They both share one thing in common: the first amendment. 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.
The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues. Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses.
Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation's path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week's shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.
One of the major principles of the United States government has always been the freedom of speech given to its citizens, but what really comes with this freedom? Does this founding principle make it socially acceptable to create uncomfortable environments and use words to injure others? I think this right has limitations anywhere you go. Countries like Israel are making the word Nazi outlawed. And this isn’t because they’re trying to limit and control freedom of speech but rather because of its symbolic meaning in history. (Thane Rosenbaum page 165) And I believe this limit is crucial especially in places of diversity and higher learning such as college campuses. There is a difference between “trying to persuade and trying to injure.” (Rosenbaum page 166) So while many people believe that freedom of speech on a
Wasn’t America always the “Land of the free”? Doesn’t every single citizen of the United States have the inalienable right of “Freedom of Speech”? These are needed questions because these statements did not stand true for African Americans back in the time of slavery. For over 200 years slavery had been a huge function in America. Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, John Brown and Harriet Tubman had to use different techniques to further the overall message that slavery needed to end and that it was not in any shape or form justifiable to treat an entire African American race like they were lesser than or caged up animals. Nevertheless, slaves put them through intolerable actions slave owners and white people put African Americans through
In the story “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” by Nat Hentoff was a very good argumentative passage. Hentoff argues that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how offensive it is interpreted by others. Dough Hann abused his freedom of speech when he blurted out “Fuck you niggers” to black students at Brown University. A student asked Hann to stop screaming and Hann yelled “What are you a faggot?” Next, Hann noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm and asked “What are you a Jew?” and shouted, “Fucking Jew!” In my opinion, it was a great decision to expel Dough Hann. He attended Brown University, which means he should have demonstrated a good role model and be respectful. Using bad language and being an alcoholic like Hann
Freedom of speech is the freedom all people have, to express what they consider and express any opinions. It is an ability to express our opinions freely without being punished or censored. All people throughout the world are entitled and must have right to freedom of speech. However, how much do we know about freedom of speech: when did it occur? Does every countries have it? Is there negative and positive sides?
There’s an old saying that “sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” In reality, that saying is wrong. Words hurt a person as much as punch or a kick can. It may not hurt someone physically, but it can scar someone mentally and emotionally. Due to the topics they are associated with, certain words or phrases can elicit strong reactions; some are positive, while others are negative but nonetheless, they all leave an impact on people. Today in class, we discussed a topic that is deeply engraved in American history yet widely avoided by many: race. More specifically, terms like “racist,” “All Lives Matter,” and “white privilege,” which may make some people uncomfortable but more than ever, need to be confronted and examined. We watched several videos containing a variety of people discussing their own personal thoughts and feelings on such terms to spark our own conversations on the same topics.
In the article “The Unfair Speech Movement”, written Sol Stern he reflects back on the origination of the Free Speech Movement that he was a part of at the University of California Berkeley in 1964. This protest was lead by the students of Berkeley in retaliation of the restrictions being put on them by the university in which they believed was a violation of their rights. Even so, it is Sterns opinion that after 50 years what Berkeley now stands for is the opposite of what he believed the movement stood for.
There is a belief among people that declares religion as the main cause of wars worldwide, and it has been the main cause of violence throughout the history of humanity. While we cannot deny that, some battles such as the crusades and the Lebanese civil war were based on religious faith, it is totally illogical to consider religion as the main cause of wars. Moreover, although there is also no disagreement that some extremist in Islam were behind 9/11, it is considered a misjudgment to say that all individuals in this religion convey the concept of violence and cruelty. The fact is non-religious incentives take the responsibility for almost all of humans’ wars. Lives lost during religious wars are nothing compared to those lost during non-religious wars.so why people believe that religion is the cause of wars, why they are wrong and do the extremist represent religions?
As human beings, we are all born with an entitlement of freedom of speech or synonymously known as freedom of expression as it is a basic human right. It is stated in the Federal Constitution and it is important for us human beings to protect our rights to freedom of speech and expression as it is the backbone for a democratic society. Having the right to express oneself freely without any restrictions is an essential part of what it means to be a free human being. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution states that; (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.
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. While politicians can control the masses through society, they can always manipulate their agendas using such tactics against the population.