The Argument Against Hate Speech

We should protect everything that people say because it's their right to say what they believe and if we take that away we are no different from North Korea or Cuba. Depriving people of what they can or can't say takes away the whole ideology this country was born of people started a revolution for what they believed so we shouldn't take it away. The only time that we should stop protecting people of what they believe is when there is a violent outbreak like the attack in Charlottesville. James Alex Fields, Jr is a prime example of what free speech isn't because speech is not going out in your car and ramming it into a group of people this when the government should step in because that is no longer speech in a peaceful way you are harming people for stating there own opinion(Pearce). Some people try to take justice into their own hands like Based Stickman AKA Kyle Chapman who went to a Trump rally and starting assaulting people with a flagpole and he was then taken to jail on suspicion of a felony with a deadly weapon(Chang).

The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc. by not allowing them the

It is also because of the first amendment, that I believe the government should maintain the right of the individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the government, through the act of flag burning and not amend the constitution to make such right illegal. Though many people may see the burning of the flag as a disrespectful notion towards the nation, it can be considered a way of expression. As stated in the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people…”.

What distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime is motive. In order for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be motivated by the group membership of the victim. Critics of hate crime laws have argued that they are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections of free speech, association, and freedom of thought. Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) in which freedom of thought was determined to be implied by the First Amendment.

In 1993, Scott Russell Sanders responds to an essay written by Salman Rushdie, to counteract the idea of “people who transplant themselves in ideas rather than places.” Sanders provides the American public with acknowledgements of counter-arguments, historical references, and patriotic appeals to convey his message that “movement is inherently good” isn’t as it seems from Rushdie’s point of view. Sanders respects Rushdie’s views on migration and uses them to strengthen his argument through countering Rushdie’s views. Sanders cites Rushdie’s claim that “migrants must, of necessity, make a new imaginative relationship with the world, because of the loss of familiar habitats” (47-50). Sanders acknowledges Rushdie’s view on migrants opening up to new ideas due to them leaving their homelands.

Reynolds defines hate speech as something that is very difficult to define because there is never going to be an idea or opinion that everybody agrees with without any contradiction. He states that hate speech is “meaningless” and is just a form of speech that people contradict. He parallels hate speech to “racist, sexist, or poor in taste”, but doesn 't explicitly say that hate speech is exactly that. Additionally, Reynolds says that fighting words are not considered hate speech, but rather an allurement to fight one-on-one. Reynolds is basically saying that there is no such of a thing as hate speech because all speech is protected whether it is homophobic, racist, sexist etc.

Words have power and not to just inspire, but to harm, separate, intimidate, and in some cases kill. Although the freedom to say what we wish is a right that every American is given, which speech should be protected and which should not? The line between offensive and harmful language is a very thin one with no real definable border. It is impossible to avoid offending everyone now and days, but attempting to harm another with words to deliberately cause emotional or psychological damage should be unacceptable. Charles Lawrence, Derek Bok, and Gwen Wilde all had interesting perspectives on the first amendment and what controversial ways it is used.

Hate Speech What exactly is hate speech and is it protected by the Constitution? Hate speech is a claim against someone or a body of people if that person or body of people are saying something that the one who makes the claims disagrees with as a way to silence the opposition by making them look bad. What is hate speech? Well according to amerca.org "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." Hate speech is not hate crime.

Any evaluation of whether, how, or how much, hate speech ought to be prohibited. It must therefore account for certain key variables, namely , who and what are involved and where, when and under what circumstances these cases arise. They also make a difference in terms of whether or not it should be prohibited. As it, anywhere may make a difference depending on the country, society or culture involved, which may justify flatly prohibiting all Nazi propaganda in Germany but not in the United States may also matter within the same country or society. Thus, hate speech in an intracommunal setting may in some cases be less dangerous than if uttered in an intercommoned setting.

Censorship is anything that curbs freedom of expression. It stems from authority and functions to silence what the authority finds disturbing and transgressive, therefore, subject to control. It has often been observed that the reasons of censorship are mainly the desire to retain political power, upholding theological dogmas and maintaining moral standard of the community. And censors often claim to restrict speech, writing or image they find contrary to such long-held beliefs or harmful enough for suppression. Further, it is also important to understand that censorship is not only an after effect of the act of expression.

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.

In Trish Roberts-Miller article “Characteristics of Demagoguery” she describes this term as a strategy to polarize and blame out-groups for the ineffectiveness of solutions to the country 's problems. Demagoguery is fear based, it calls for quick actions and attacks. Demagogues use certain strategies

We honor them by honoring those principles of freedom – even when a callous few vainly attempt to demean the dignity rightfully due them. ”[21] The intended message is that these soldiers fought to protect America’s freedoms, including that of free speech. In honoring them we should honor what they stood for, because even if a select few wish to abuse free speech it is still for the greater good.

Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.

All freedoms should have a restriction somewhere, and this limitation should happen when one breaks a law for the purpose of a religion. Americans should have their freedoms, but safety is even more important. Harming others for the purpose of a religion is a threat to society, and can bring down the nation. It is not fair for the purpose of people to break the law just because of a religious belief, while other people get punished for breaking the law. The first amendment is a controversial topic that still gets debated today.