Stanley Fish's The Harm In Free Speech

In Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech”, Lakoff claims that not everyone is able to understand hate speech because not everyone goes through it, or they don't find it a big deal because it doesn't happen to them. Someone might claim that they know that hate speech doesn't happen that often but, what is hate speech? Hate speech is to “promote violence” and it is “created by people who are a majority of the population; directed toward people who are a part of a minority population.” (bsu.edu). The First Amendment allows people to speak what they want, and express themselves. 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

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

In Jonathan Rauch’s article In Defense of Prejudice, Rauch gives a compelling argument as to why people prejudicial talk should not be diminished. In agreement with Salman Rushdie: "without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist,” Rauch believes society should not be seeking ways to end this type of speech. This is because taking it away would cause a regression in society’s development. Instead, all should come to terms with the idea that with freedom of speech; comes unwanted opinions. I strongly agree with the viewpoint Jonathan Rauch presented in his article; it is upon all of us to stop pointing fingers and calling each other bigots because they do not fit into our molds of right and wrong.

After mentioning why racist speech is wrong, Lawrence comments “I also have a deeply felt apprehension about the resurgence of racial violence and the corresponding rise in the incidence of verbal and symbolic assault and harassment to which blacks and other traditionally subjected and excluded groups are subjected”(72). Putting emphasis on how racist actions hurt others is important for the reader to comprehend. Furthermore, the idea of free speech “reinforces our society’s commitment to tolerance as a value”(71). Gives choices to each individual to decide who and what they stand for, no more pandering and watching what others do. As a result, free speech brings community together as a whole. Lawrence communicates that as active members in a community, the fight for what is right and for free speech can be

In the recent news, everyone’s heard of the rise in hate crime. Most hate crime is “motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence,” (Dictionary.com). Hate crimes have spanned across the country and impact thousands of lives each year. The FBI started investigating hate crimes at the turn of the 20th century. The FBI define hate crime as, “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” (FBI). The discussion of hate crime has been very delicate over the past few months, from ISIS to police brutality. In this paper situations involving hate crime will be discussed such as the background; history of hate crime like the holocaust; special groups and genders that get “hated” on such as blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and Jews; examples of hate crime; prominent figures like Donald Trump and his anti- Muslim and anti-immigrant policies as well as news pieces of hate crime; groups for and against other races like the black lives matter movement; statistics of hate crime and hate groups in the U.S.; the argument that

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. However, the right to free speech is not absolute. The United State Supreme Court has ruled that the government can ban some speeches that contain “fighting words,” and words that

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.

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

First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers. However, despite the distasteful nature of the Church’s

Section 319(2) of the criminal code prohibits hate propaganda, not including in private conversations. Subsection 2(b) of the Charter protects hate propaganda because it is a form of expression. Therefore, subsection 319(2) of the criminal code violated subsection 2(b) of the Charter. Section 319(2) of the criminal code establishes a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1 of the charter.

“Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist… feel it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse(Bradbury 2).” Similar to Ray Bradbury’s notions from his “Coda” on Fahrenheit 451, controversial opinions and novel ideas are sometimes engulfed in the animosity and intolerance of minorities who deem it in their best interest to shield any opposing ideology. One, moreover, might wonder how this intolerance might have originated. Well, from the desire to remove or conceal any offensive materials, special interest groups and parents of young children have attempted to ban or edit books with good intentions, albeit with detrimental effects in the long run. Of course, these entities may think they have the people’s best interests in mind, but in reality, they completely undermine the intellectual freedom one can possess. In summary, this phenomenon is

“We all must be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against” (Bradbury 55-56). Since each and every person is subject to solely viewing the sum of what censorship does not block off, all people consequently develop the same notions, biases, fears, and so forth, leaving little to no room for the spawn of antipathy and enmity. This system of eliminating differences dissuades anyone from remarking or contriving in an offensive manner, lest he become a hypocrite in the process. What man can renounce a quality in someone else when it is one of the very things that makes him the man that he is? It may be true that humans bear a great capacity for self awareness, embolden their individuality with an almost unconscious resoluteness. Yet still, when censorship has such a resounding involvement on the general life experiences of all and the interpretation of those experiences, along with the access to information, no one has the means or inspiration to impugn his neighbors and rebel away from society. Through this reconfiguration of the individual to disassociate him from his insolent revelations, he becomes another insignificant star twinkling with average brightness in the nighttime sky,

It further postulates that such commentary on public figures is not only legal, but also healthy — implicitly making the argument that Free Speech is an essential feature of participation in democracy, and that public figures must bow to such caricatures in exchange for the power that society has bestowed upon them. It summarises this belief with a quote taken directly from the Hustler v. Falwell judgement:

Buchhandler-Raphael, Michal. "Overcriminalizing Speech." Cardozo Law Review 36.5 (2015): 1667-1737. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.

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.