Abstract
The paper deals with one of the most debatable topic of the country that is right to freedom of speech and expression and rising cases of hate speech in politics and role of media in it. The Indian Constitution makes the “right to freedom of speech and expression” a fundamental under Article 19(1)(a) .The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right of freedom of speech and expression but not the right to offend anyone’s sentiments .
With various examples of recent instances, it is proven in the paper that there is a rise in hate speech during elections. Many political leaders are accused of giving hate speeches during elections just to gain the sympathy of their vote bank. But they forget that it may end up in apathy in the society. In many cases, people get involved just to get the limelight. The research further explores why hate speech mongers go unpunished. Instances where hate speeches do not get noticed and punished are a greater threat to the social and religious harmony of the country than that which is covered by mainstream media. The Research in a nutshell discuss about the various laws in different acts.
Key words: hate speech, free speech, media, Indian Constitution, Political leaders
Present Landscape of Freedom of speech and expression and Relating Laws in India
We have freedom of speech, but you got to watch what you say.
Does the First Amendment, Free Expression Clause, apply to the New York State law against Criminal Anarchy, depriving Giltow of his liberty of expression under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, advocated the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and other unlawful means through his Left Wing Manifesto. He was arrested and charged with criminal Anarchy, “the policy that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence... or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony”. Gitlow argued that the New York law was an unconstitutional limit forced by the state on the rights guaranteed
The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have.
¶2. One type of protected free speech that is especially controversial is hate speech. ¶3. Hate speech is not permitted if it is threatening. ¶4.
Matthew Rabadi Civil Liberties and Multiculturalism Professor Szobonya 10/24/95 First Amendment Research Paper: America Vs. North Korea There are many societal problems in todays world. These problems can range from poverty, crime, to even human right violations. The United States serves as a model country, where many of these problems are not seen or handled with quality efforts.
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.
Hate speech against minority is discrimination which has no place in our society. Constitution is color blind. Skin color does not make any difference; it is racism which lies in the eyes of beholder. Hate speech suppress the voice of minority so that they are unable to exchange the ideas
Should hate speech be prevented? Hate can provoke violent incidents which are capable of having a stronger impact on victims than ordinary crimes. For example, they send a message to communities that these communities should be denied the right to be part of society. Since hate speech may promote hate crimes, the two concepts are interlinked. Responses to hate crime would call for changes in legislation and training in the criminal justice system aimed at improving responses to hate crimes; such as, investigation, prosecution, and prevention of hate crimes.
Freedom of expression is one of the laws the forefathers of America made to empower its citizens and also enables them to live in peace amongst themselves. In most countries around the world, freedom of expression does not exist, so there is always war in those countries. In the article “Why the First Amendment (and Journalism) Might Be in Trouble”, the authors, Ken Dautrich, chair of the Public Policy at the University of Connecticut and John Bare, who is the vice president for strategic planning and evaluation at the Arthur M. Blank Family foundation in Atlanta, conducted a research study on the importance of freedom of speech. They used their research findings to support freedom of expressions. They employed claim of policy, claim of fact and also appeal to pathos and logos in their argument of the importance of the freedom of speech.
In this article, Jacobs successfully makes his argument by remaining objective, appealing more toward the ethos and logos of the reader, and limiting emotional language. Jacobs aims his article toward lawmakers and voters. Motives are subjective and based on many factors; therefore, Jacobs argues that basing hate crime off of motive does not only create hardships but also flaws. He continues his argument by looking at rights given to the people from the First Amendment. According to the First Amendment, people possess many freedoms including the freedom of speech; however, Jacobs argues how hate crimes
Freedom has been the center of American ideals since the United States gained independence from Great Britain. To protect these ideals, the Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights; which contains the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The document grants American citizens their basic rights and freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and the right to petition the government without retribution. It directly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it offers the citizens of United States the essential human freedoms of religion, freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. The first amendment rights are not provided by the government, indeed these are the rights that people inherently possess. This amendment is not only an important amendment but also a controversial amendment in Bill of Rights. Specifically, this piece of writing explains freedom of religion and the freedom of speech below.
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.”
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
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.
Hello, It is quite comical how we have gotten to the point of which we are now censoring what we can and cannot wear. It is extremely ludacris. The reason I find it both comical and ludacris is because freedom of expression is a human right. The reason I wear the hat is that I am in support of a Conservative President. I support his Pro-Life stance, his call to a return of Traditional values, his defense of the West, his speech on why we must protect Western Values and our Judeo-Christian heritage, his Muslim ban and his support for Israel.