Hate speech is not hate crime. Hate crime is a crime usually, an act of violence towards people of different race, someone with a disability, religion, or sexual orientation, as said from report-it.com. Hate crime is much different, because hate speech is just a stated opinion
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.
The decency and morality includes the state can put restriction on forms of expression if they are considered to be indecent, immoral or obscene. The Supreme Court in India while deciding whether the novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover contained obscene material, upheld the Hicklin Test. The contempt of court concerned with the laws enacted by the legislature which restrict the exercise of one’s right of freedom of speech and expression if it interferes with due course of justice or lowers the authority or stature of justice or lowers the authority or stature of the court. Although criticism of the judicial system or judges is not restricted, it must not impair or hamper the administration of justice. Defamation is an intentional false statement either published or publicly
Freedom of speech has always been a controversial topic. Bringing up the question of since people have freedom of speech does that give them the right to use hate speech. No, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to use hate speech. Hate speech is used to put others down or to literally ‘hate’ on a subject or idea. Why in society should we be putting anyone down, just because we do not agree with them?
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.
She writes that, "a policymaking tool is needed to draw the line between speech that should be sanctioned and speech that must be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression, no matter how ugly it may be" (Benesch 250). This exemplifies two types of common fallacies. The first is the SLIPPERY SLOPE fallacy because it almost states that one change will lead to another, and it can be a negative or positive result. The second fallacy is CONFIRMATION BIAS because it confirms her own standpoint and belief, opposed to contrary evidence. She states that the government has even tried to place censorships on technology and the media which has not worked.
The states that the suing contributed in were Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The suers that were apart of the case contended that the states that were being sued disobeyed the Due Process Clause. (From the fourteenth amendment) The Due Process clause being “individual dignity and anatomy”. The contender also brought the ideas of how the states might have violated the claims under the civil rights act or the Equal Protection Clause. According to oyez.org, “Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to conform to a certain law or policy in a form of peaceful or non-violent political protest. However, it is still illegal and considered as a crime and deviant act as it goes against the law (a formal norm) enforced by the government. In this essay, two different sociological perspectives, namely the functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives, will be applied to analyzing the issue of civil disobedience. In the case of the Umbrella Movement, civil disobedience falls under the category of positive deviance. This is because the protestors are simply over-conforming to once again remind the government how the existing method for selecting the chief executive goes against Hong Kong’s human rights treaty, binding agreements that require the government to establish mechanisms that allow for equal, meaningful participation in public life.
Germany, for example, has outlawed recreationally expressing Nazi sentiments (salutes, swastikas, etc.) and is extremely forgiving of what transpired during WWII. Conversely, the United States allows hate speech and, therefore, Confederate flags and statues are allowed to be state-sponsored, i.e. Confederate flag within a state flag (Mississippi) or Confederate soldier statues on government property. A famous University of Arizona example is Brother Dean, who spews absolutely hateful rhetoric
Hazing is classified differently than bullying, however, the same influences and dynamics are involved. The only real difference between hazing and bullying is that bullying usually involves the singling out an individual at any time with the intention of excluding them. Hazing can be seen throughout many different social facets, especially among college students and their initiations into different fraternities and sororities. Many times the initiations can come in the form of fairly nonthreatening pranks to patterns of behaviors that lead to the level of abuse and criminal misconduct. In all cases hazing is prohibited by law and is prohibited by institutions and colleges because of the severe physical and psychological abuse that can occur.