Social media is changing the way we interact, offering a new model to engage with team members, colleagues, and the world at large. This format and type of interaction can help you to build stronger, more successful engagement opportunities, and it 's a way for you to take part in national conversations related to the endeavors, concerns and causes that are important to Frederick Douglass Foundation.
Hate crime laws are defined as a state law that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so. However, in 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This made it easier to prosecute criminals while also adding in gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Hate crimes have been a long-lasting reality in the United States beginning in the nation’s history with eradicating Native American populations, slavery, and xenophobia. As a result, forty-five states have adopted hate crime laws to combat organized hate groups from preying upon the most vulnerable groups in society. Hate crime laws provide special protections to the groups that are most frequently targeted by hate crimes including African Americans, LGBT, Jews, and Muslims. Although there has been much debate over what groups should be protected by hate crime laws, evidently there are groups that have been historically targeted at a much higher rate than others. Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation.
Flames, teargas, riots, city blocks destroyed, in consequence to a statement. In today 's modern society, rude acts of communication known as hate speech, have become a controversial topic in America. Although hate speech is awful, it should be protected by the first amendment. Hate speech should be permitted because omitting such phrases would set a precedent for censorship and repress the minority. Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases.
The Racial Discrimination Act was implemented in 1975 and was drafted in response to a global push to codify protections for Indigenous Australians and other racial minorities. Section 18C of this act makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimate an individual or a group of people on the basis of race, colour or national origin (Austlii.edu.au.) This clause was brought to the fore front of national debate as popular conservative columnist, Andrew Bolt, was found in violation of this law when he accused mix-raced Indigenous Australians of using their heritage to claim government benefits. The Abbott government pledged to repeal section 18C but has subsequently withdrawn the motion following severe backlash from the wider community (Aston.) South Australian Family First Senator, Bob Day, has since introduced a private member bill to repeal 18C, insisting that
Hate speech—words or symbols targeted at a particular group or person that attack or intimidate them based upon sex, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender—has recently become extremely controversial, especially in regards to college campuses. Although merely visual or verbal behaviors, hate speech can indirectly and directly cause physical and psychological harms. Philosophers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic delve into the negative impact of hate speech in their essay “Words That Wound”, detailing exactly how supposed expressions of freedom of speech can detrimentally impact its victims. Such dire consequences thus call for targeted and threating speech to be banned in certain spaces in order to sustain a safe environment for the majority of people.
A black man falls casualty in a car accident after a white male driver fails to stop his car. On his social media page, posts containing racist comments are found throughout his page. The black community voice their outrage on this crime by commenting, "This is an attack against our society!" Many people argue, that for such cases, a hate crime law needs to be instated and enforced; however, in the article "Should Hate Be a Crime?" a man named James B. Jacobs argues against the legislation of hate crime laws. 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.
Propaganda comes in a number of forms, some being more subtle while other forms are far more blunt. Frequently major political figures or movements will choose to perform this propaganda by portraying some foreign or otherwise opposing group in a negative light, even to the extent of portraying them as inferior and subhuman. Once this has been accomplished it becomes but a simple matter to have people commit cruel action against said opposing group. This process of dehumanization has been discussed ad nauseam within the political and literary world, with the subject matter encompassing a number of events from the Rwandan Genocide to the Vietnam War, and including the all too notorious Holocaust. However,
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. The argument for hate crime laws is supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) that hate crime laws punish conduct rather than thought.
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
Intolerance and oppression have confronted humans as far as history has been recorded. It dates back as far as 18500 BC. Jews, homosexuals, muslims, gypsies, women, prisoners of war, disabled, Africans, these and more religious and ethnic have been suppressed one time or another throughout history. By examining history, all the horrendous acts of intolerance against humans shows all the areas of oppression still active today and the pattern of methods used to oppress people.
The first amendment in the bill of rights was integrated into the constitution as a fundamental principle, founding a citizen's right for protection against a government's power. Since the ratification of the constitution, lose interpretations have been taken for court cases that remain outside of the constitutions specified writen powers, allowing for a decision to be made on these concepts. The basis of these interpretations come from the ideology that the constitution is a living document that must change in order to adapt into the modern perspective of society. As a ramification, loose interpretation are now being prompted when addressing the first article of the constitution. These controversial outlooks placed upon the first amendment
Hate is everywhere! Everywhere you turn there will always be people who hate you, your ideas, or everything. As a High School student, hate surrounds me in digital forms and physical forms. I see bullies in real life and homophobic people on my Twitter Timeline. They both share one thing in common: the first amendment. 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.
In this essay, I will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument concerning government in relation to utilitarianism, and why freedom of speech is important. Utilitarianism is a form of philosophy that relies on moral systematic theories, which include principles that offer discussion. Utilitarianism is considered to be a version of consequentialism, which is that the morality of an action is determined exclusively by appeal to its consequences. The foundation that forms the premise of utilitarianism is contingent on two parts. One being from an account of utility or what is intrinsically good. The second part is the actual principle of utility. The principle of utility is used to help make moral decisions. Mill’s account of utility is based on the overall happiness of the majority. Mill states that, “it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest happiness of altogether” (Mill Chapter 2,7). Producing the greatest amount of happiness in the greatest number of people is Mill’s qualitative measurement on an account of
The time in which we live is the age of communication and the speech or talking one of the important ways of communication and expression. There are different types of Speech and communicate, one of them hate speech. Hate speech means attacking a person or group based on different basis such as gander, religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality and disability. In the other hand, some of human rights treaties agree with freedom of speech or freedom of expression it could offend or disturb others so government of Countries placed laws of hate speech to avoid harms, troubles and problems. Over years Hate speech law became one of the most known laws in international law.