Analysis Of Criminal Persecution Of 'Liberal' Nice By Jonathan Rauch

1. Jonathan Rauch is very Millisean in the sense that he believes language on its own cannot be harmful, merely offense. Since this is the case, freedom of speech should not be restricted for any reason. According to “In Defense of Prejudice,” There are two sides to this argument. Purism follows that society will not function justly unless there is no more prejudice at all. In this case that would mean, if necessary, freedom of speech should be restricted. On the other hand, Pluralism follows that we cannot eradicate racism, so we should do our best to change their minds. When all else fails, all you can really do is leave them alone.

In the name of free speech, hate speech should not be tolerated. Hate speech has devastating effects on the people and communities it is targeted at. Left unchecked hate speech can lead to harmful and violent effects. Over the past few years, the effects of hate speech used on women, homosexuals, ethnic groups and religious minorities have become more and more apparent. Hate speech can be very divisive in many of the situations it is used, depending on who interprets the expression can vary how people react, due to hate speech, not being easy defend when it does not hurt that certain person or community. If left uncheck hate speech can develop into harmful narratives that remain. While hate speech is not against the law, some have begun

Charles Lawrence has been active in his use of the First Amendment rights since he was a young boy. When confronted with the issue of racist speech, he feels that it needs to be diminished by society as a unit, because this discrimination does not just effect one person, but society

According to Charles R. Lawrence III, hate speech in the United States is unacceptable and represent it’s kind of restriction on the use of free speech. On his speech on hate speech, he claims that the hate speech silences the voices of the minority groups among the citizens and causes them to be excluded from free exchange of ideas and the promotion of their right to freedom of expression. In his speech, he first examines the Supreme Court outcome and decision in Brown vs. Board of Education case, where he urges that this is one of the most important facts on the equal protection laws in the United States of America. In this case, he shows that prejudice is part of racist speech. Furthermore, he extends that everyone is entitled to participation as a member of society and that separate schools undermine the idea of expression. Additionally, he asserts that hate speech restricts the involvement of these minority groups and thus it should be legislated.

Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” There has been a controversial issue regarding hate speech and the laws that prohibit it. The right to freedom of expression reassures each person the right to express themselves in ideas and opinions without the government's interference. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment and should not be expressed towards others because it causes harm. In this essay I will talk about the effects harmful hate speech caused to others and to the groups treated as insignificant. I will also discuss how hate speech cannot

In addition to suggesting that eradicating prejudice can cause bigger conflicts among the “purist” and “pluralist”. Rauch also argues when purist campaign against words they are also only targeting the surface of the issue. Everyone who is a minority is a target to this kind of language, even Rauch himself. To appeal to our emotions, once again he tells us about the incident in the train when he believed for a moment that those kids were referring to his as a faggot. This experience made him realized the power of prejudice words. By condemning words as inappropriate, we condemn only those whose say them, once again not prejudice it self, and once again leading to a defeated battle from the start. He referenced the “Dictionary of Cautionary Words and Phrases” from The University of Missouri's journalism department as an example of this battle to caution non politically correct vocabulary. Rauch draws a very valid point here, words are just words, and as long as there bigots and racist will find new words to add more fuel to this

After explaining the metaphorical and cognitive basis of our daily interaction, Lakoff applied conceptual metaphor to the analysis of political motivating thoughts. In 1996 Lakoff introduced his book entitled moral politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, in which he introduced an influential metaphorical framework for realizing American political way of thinking. Lakoff makes benefit from the techniques of cognitive linguistics for a better understanding of the mental framework that underlie the contemporary American politics, Lakoff defines the mental concepts that make up a ‘Democrats’ and that of the ‘Republicans’. For Lakoff the ‘Democrats’ morals and political thoughts are superior to ‘Republican’ morals and policy.

<br>As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim's race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal's freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one's

Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are

In countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

Opposition to all forms of hate speech laws are quite passionate. People who are adamant against hate speech laws affirm their beliefs through the First Amendment. Believing that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, no matter how terrible, these people go about calling others “snowflakes” just for protesting hate speech. Instead of actually understanding the harmful effects that have been proven by researchers they instead trivialize the effects (Neilsen 10-11). This type of resistive thinking is

Yet another important question to ask is, what exactly defines a hate crime?  Is what Dr. Laura Schlessinger guilty of a hate crime when she says that individuals are “entitled to respect and kindness as fellow human beings,” when she publicly denounces homosexuality? (Leo).  A logical person wouldn’t think so.  However, Dr. Schlessinger is coming under heavy scrutiny form gay rights groups protesting the good Doctors radio show and calling for her silence, or, at a minimum, an apology on the subject.  Denouncing homosexuality pacifically should in no way be compared to the hostile descent of neo-nazi hate groups.  So should both hostile and pacifist discent be limited on the same scale?  Pacifist descent should not be limited at all in any case, to do so would be a total suppression of free speech and hostile dissent should only be limited in certain extreme cases.  This must be done

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also