As Holmes had stated there are other forms that are not protected which are known as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting words. The case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942 determined that fighting words and other forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky had argued that the New Hampshire law violated his Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from infringing on citizens’ fundamental freedoms and as a result, kept him from exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. While states are not allowed to inhibit expression of ideas, the Court did not convict him for the expression of his ideas but because his words (calling religion a ‘racket’ and a city marshal ‘damned racketeer’ and ‘damned fascist’)
Charles R. Lawrence III is a professor at Georgetown University that publicized an article inside “The Chronicle of Higher Education” and later on in the “Duke Law Journal” which was headlined “On Racist Speech”. Ever since Charles Lawrence was young he was quite the anarchist on the matter of the first amendment protecting racial slurs. He encourages University’s to stand up and reprimand such absurd speech with a reinforced approach without completely throwing out the first amendments rights. Charles Lawrence uses Brown v. the board of education as an example, the discrimination is causing psychological effects that are turning an educational environment into an environment of destruction. As he then goes on to explain that if racial speech
In Nat Hentoff essay, “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” he debates that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how it is taken by others. The one example that pops out to me is the student at Brown University, Dough Hann. He states many offensive things about several people and is expelled because it was not the first time something like this has happened. Freedom of speech is difficult subject that has many different views on it.
Lawrence III I believes that face-to-face confrontation should be counted as fighting words. (Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, pages 174-177). He describes that hate speech shouldn’t be considered under the first amendment because the person committing this act is not verbally speaking aloud to invite a discussion or rational argument but to instead “injure the victim”(Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, page 175). I believe in the idea of what Lawrence is conveying because when I take a utilitarian approach and try to weigh the benefits for human society I realize that fighting and violence don't amount to much forward progress and advancement. The fact being that no hate speech ever has amounted to any good in history.
However, many students raise the question of what is considered “acceptable speech.” Speech codes are designed to promote inclusion, tolerance, and respect for diversity. These codes and policies typically prohibit hate speech and speech that incites violence or intimidation. However, what happens when one student has a different definition of what they believe hate speech is? Supporters of speech codes point to the fact that hate crimes and incidents on college campuses have been on the rise in recent years and argue that speech codes and policies are an important tool for combating these incidents.
I believe that restricting hate speech can influence violence because the public would learn to care for one another. Although the first amendment protects freedom of speech, there should be limitations. The hate speech can turn into dangerous speech as it raises bigger ethical issues because it is conveyed publicly and loudly. Ethical issues affect us all in society not just the person being victimized. If we had restrictions in how people express themselves about others, people will tend to be more careful about what they say or publish on social media.
Speaking of the First Amendment, we should all remember what the actual documentation says: "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 Government for a redress of grievances." Based on the first amendment, there is no "Hate Speech" to it as seen in some Colleges. College students defined Hate Speech as "ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties" (Davidson). Basically, whatever that is against the Liberal point of view is viewed as hate speech; however, such a thing as "Hate Speech" does not exist; there are only different opinions and point of views.
Many hate speech supporters argue that, “The first amendment remains the single most powerful instrument for protecting the sacred freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition for modern Americans”(2) as stated in the article, “How First Amendment Rights Evolved”. Multiple people believe that taking away a law that has been critical to our society for so long would be a change that people could not handle. Our country has not experienced change in major laws very often so that is why many people do not want hate speech to be banned. However, our country needs change and not protecting hate speech is a change in the right direction for a better society. Perez proves, “If words can cause stress, and if stress can cause physical harm, then certain types of speech can be a form of violence” (Perez 2).
I’ll admit that in order to debate one’s perspective they sometimes need to be able to say offensive things. If hate speech is restricted how would the KKK express, their opinion to their followers and the world. I’m not supporting the KKK but they should have the right to voice their beliefs. However outside of debate words like the N word and fag are very hurtful to those people or groups hearing them. For example, “A black man employed by a Minnesota trucking company had racial slurs directed at him and was the target of graffiti written by fellow workers.”
Let me explain. Historically, universities were never meant to be places where people prepared for jobs or where specialists aimed to benefit the “private sector.” The university has traditionally been a community of people sharing in the exploration of human thought and creativity. The common assumption since universities became public enterprises has been that if the best minds of our youth are an important natural resource, then universities will maximize their development.
Some colleges have expelled their student because of hate speech. One instance, sourced by insidehighered.com is Harley Barber a student of The University of Alabama was expelled for posting a video on Instagram containing racial slurs. I will I protect or support racism, but I will protect and support free speech. Never the less, the University of Alabama is legally not allowed to expel Barber for her racial slurs. The University of Alabama is a public school and must abide by the people 's rights.
Hate Speech: A Misuse of Freedom of Speech Hate speech is speech that offends or threatens a person or groups based on race, religion, gender, disability, and other traits. It is also a gesture, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence towards a protected individual or group. Negative opinions which are conveyed as hate speech can be used to degrade or attack a person’s self- worth or insecurities. There are many ways to do this and one example is by bullying through verbal assault. Bullying is an act that is intentionally done to intimidate, hurt of degrade a person.
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.
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. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.
We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate