Analysis Of Exposure To Hate Speech

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "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." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

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.

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,

Critical preface: I choose to explore the hate crime problem in society. The reason I choose this topic is because hate crime is a brutal act against people, property, or society because of the group to which they are members or associate with. The hate crime is one of the most notorious crimes which leads to violent acts causing death and disaster. We need to stop these horrible acts and the solution would be to seek advice from an anti-hate organization which help us reduce hate crimes and factual information can then be spread to the society.

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

Levin and McDevitt’s typology of hate crime offenders found that offender’s motivations could be divined into three classifications. Fist, the thrill-seeking crimes, is based on cases were the offenders almost always young and in small groups were “just bored and looking for some fun.”( Gerstenfeld, 91) In most of the cases perpetrators may not be biased toward the victims, but they follow a leader who was biased. Thrill-Seeking crimes is the most common type, perpetrators often left their neighborhood to searching for victims. Second, reactive crimes, perpetrators don’t leave their own neighborhoods to seek out the victims; instead the victims happened upon them. (Gerstenfeld, 93) Cases such as Howard Beach in 1986, where three young African-American

The United States has an extended background of biased actions against individuals because of their race,religion,sexual orientation,identity, ethnicity,gender, and disability. African Americans are the most likely victims of hate crime in America, followed by people of the Jewish belief and individuals of dissimilar sexual nature or gender identity.Law administration, the general criminal justice system, and oppponent-hate crime institution have established programs and tools to help respond to and prohibit hate crime. For example, several police agencies have developed hate crime teams, several jurisdictions require treatment for hate crime perpetrators, and both national and regional anti-hate organizations have developed Web sites to provide

What is a hate speech for one may be an empowering speech for another. Many believe these speeches contribute to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs that allow for several different aspects of a situation to be analyzed. Others believe these words will start violent actions against those hated upon. However, old adages about sticks and stones exist for a reason: they are true. No matter the individual, people are capable of ignoring the hate if they so wish. Sometimes, many make claims so outrageous that not even the most zealous of advocates would argue them, bold statements such as saying all Middle Easterners should be tortured because they are all terrorists. It is not worth anyone’s time to argue against these, and creating a political issue surrounding that claim makes one appear foolish. However, several hate speeches are beneficial to the

Hatred is blind inveterate anger. There is no intrinsic value in hate speech since it does not lead to the development of society. Victims of hate speech are silenced daily, “intimidated and subject to severe psychological and physical trauma by racist assailants who employ words and symbols as part of oppression and subordination.” The intent of hate speech is never to continue a conversation but to end it. Hate speech is neither mere offense of the other, nor the expression of dissatisfaction with people. Offending one another is the price of free society, but that is not what is in question. According to Mari Matsuda, hate speech is a racist speech that has to with “perpetuation of violence and degradation” of minorities. It is unjustifiable freedom that curbs others liberty by stifling their views. It relies on false facts, ignorance and bigoted ideas. As Matsuda contends, even though hate speech does not curtail all speech, it does “inhibits some expression.” Outside the context of hate speech, we can acknowledge that words are powerful: they have the ability to create both positive and negative psychological effects. For instance, compliments can build confidence, and repeated critiques can break one’s belief in oneself. In the case of hate, speech words can degrade an individual, incite fear and lead to violence. They can traumatize some from

While some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but we should not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others.

The emotional damage that is inflicted upon a person of a hate speech is very harmful. “Some of these students came to college as a means of escaping a life dominated by race-based discrimination but found an environment more hostile than they had expected.” (Marcus 147). If our students do not feel safe while at school they will not attend school, if the number of educated people go down at a

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.

Vandalism can not only be interpreted by graffiti or a smashed window, it can even be portrayed by a hate speech, and to others hate speech is considered a self expression. In the Article Vandalized by speech written by Gregory Rodriguez he speaks about how he interprets hate speeches as a form of vandalism. Author of book Learning liberty, Greg Lukianoff suggests that it does not violate or affect the society directly. I am here to write this essay to help analyze how Rodriguez argues that hate speech is not in fact a crime, but a form of vandalism. Both authors speak on their thoughts of freedom of speech, society and individuality as the three main factors to the hate speech.