Hate Speech: The World Debate of Love and Hate
Hate speech: “Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability” (Dictionary.com). The definition of hate speech clearly outlines how brutal words can be. A definition should never include putting people down for something they have no control over like race, gender, or disability. Haters who make hateful statements about these people or groups have something completely wrong with them and it is up to the government to take charge and stop these insane people. Hate speech is a rising topic up for debate for many different reasons, good and bad. Several people around
…show more content…
Many hate speech supporters argue that, “The first amendment remains the single most powerful instrument for protecting the sacred freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition for modern Americans”(2) as stated in the article, “How First Amendment Rights Evolved”. Multiple people believe that taking away a law that has been critical to our society for so long would be a change that people could not handle. Our country has not experienced change in major laws very often so that is why many people do not want hate speech to be banned. However, our country needs change and not protecting hate speech is a change in the right direction for a better society. Perez proves, “If words can cause stress, and if stress can cause physical harm, then certain types of speech can be a form of violence” (Perez 2). Taking away a law that causes a great deal of stress to multiple groups and races would be a better solution than continuing to let so many people get beaten down by others hateful remarks. Another reason people might dispute over hate speech is that banning hate speech would encourage more government involvement to stop people from breaking the rules or saying something that is not allowed. When people’s right of hateful speech is taken away, it would take a tremendous …show more content…
Those examples can be fixed with time, what can not be fixed with time is people 's emotional state and the reputation our country has built for themselves. If hate speech is banned from the U.S constitution people over time will adjust and it will allow for others affected to finally breath, live a normal life, and no longer be pressured by community members hateful remarks. Hate speech should no longer be protected by the U.S constitution because hate speech in itself promotes hateful actions and expressions, the negative effects hate speech has on people is widespread and laws around the world have proven effective to limit internet-based hate speech. The banning of hate speech is extremely important for the future of our country and the people living long after this current generation passes. The more people promote hate speech the further our country gets from being a peaceful, and loveable place to live and grow up. The government needs to put an end to hate speech now so when people have children they grow up learning how not to be hateful, and how to be kind to anyone no matter their race, gender, or disability. If every generation from now on grew up with hate speech being a thing of the past, just stop and think what a better all around country it would be with less hate and more
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
Lawrence also mentions a fighting language exemption in his piece. He claims that it is difficult for the government to enact legislation that is specific enough to outlaw racist speech without also outlawing acceptable speech. Lawrence claims that although racist speech hurts minority populations, it also draws blood from our democratic
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.
Once upon a time, being American was the greatest honor in the world. With heads held up, people could proudly declare their heritage and feel their hearts swell at the sight of a billowing striped flag. Soldiers’ boots could touch foreign earth knowing the blood spilled would be for a nation that was more than deserving. But that was years ago; now, what does this country have worthy of a human life? Next to nothing.
“53.1% percent of the hate speech crimes in the last 5 years have been violent and psychical.” (FBI National Press Office) This shows that more than half of the hate crimes have hurt people and might affect them for the rest of their lives. Hate speech is not okay. It hurts people beyond words and causes an unfair balance of power.
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.
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.
Charles Lawrence in his racist speech tries to convince that racist speech needs to be regulated. He argues that hate speech is intolerable in the United States because it represents discrimination which Everyone defines hate speech differently. I define hate speech as anything that incites aggression regarding one person or a group of people. Now a day’s people uses free speech as a defense for saying anything but discriminating someone is not free speech.
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.
Hate crimes create a message to the public that these groups of people do matter, and they are protected by
Hate speech includes, but is not limited to, gesture, conduct, writing, or verbal communication that might encourage discriminatory behavior to a protected individual or group of individuals. Many universities are committed to creating an atmosphere of equal opportunity that harbors talent, creativity and ingenuity. Speech codes are not only justifiable, but are also essential to campuses because they do not allow the use of hate speech. One who is for the use of speech codes on campuses may argue alongside Lawrence in saying that it is unacceptable to use hate speech in any scenario or environment because it suppresses the voices of minorities. Lawrence presents the idea that “the subordinate victims of fighting words are silenced by their relatively powerless position in society.”
Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think
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.
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
Hateful speech is a constant threat to a vast majority of people, only made easier by today’s technology. So, when we know someone is being belittled by another’s hurtful words, why is it that, sometimes, we do nothing? Do we feel it is not our problem? Do we feel we should not get involved?