Freedom Of Hate Speech

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 this article, David Bornstein talks about F.B.I report about the hate crimes against Muslims reached their highest level since 2001. In New York, hate crimes are one of the most violent crimes against Muslims since last decade. The 2016 election highlighted religious problems in United States as well as all over the world. Donald Trump’s solution to terrorism to ban Muslims from entering the country create nationwide protest. In United States, people from different ethnic backgrounds belief or faith at some point suffered or become victim of hate crime. The victims includes Jews, Christians, and Mormons, alongside Muslims. In the past, Bornstein reported on the Chicago-based interfaith youth core programme, which trains people to build relationships and respect

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Freedom is a delicate balance. A society can only support an individual’s rights so long as that individual does not infringe on the rights of another. In regards to hate speech, it is hard to understand why one person’s (or group’s) right to freedom of expression should override the right of a group not to have hateful things said about them. This is a notion that I will look further into during my research, especially in both countries to determine the reasoning and arguments that have been made in prior years.

Humanitarian Law Project, a 2010 Supreme Court case, held that criminalization is permitted under the First Amendment, when there are efforts to provide advice to terrorists on how they can use international law and other nonviolent conflict-resolution mechanisms, under 18 USC. § 2339 interpreting the "material support" law. Under the previous Supreme Court precedent, speech could only be criminalized if that speech had the intent and likely effect of facilitating a terrorist or terrorist group’s illegal

President Barak Obama issued his National Security Strategy in February 2015 and outlined a plan to “Combat the Persistent Threat of Terrorism”. The necessity of protecting youth from the terrorist message is italicized. The report says, in part,

As a society, our government has tried to minimize domestic terrorism attacks and the impact that it causes should it occur, such as taking steps to acquire due diligence. Prior to the recent years, society lacked the preparedness programs and security plans, that could have prevented these ongoing attacks. Moreover, although we cannot put these attacks to a halt, we can surely put a plan into action that can prevent the widespread of these attacks. Nevertheless, these terrorists are becoming bolder ad bolder as the times go by, it seems as if the message of the government not allowing them to continue their rampage/destruction on the masses has not stuck. Prior to the recent years, we have seen high-profile attacks on major cities across the globe that has kept all individuals on their toes. Terrorist individuals/groups are no longer hitting specific groups of individuals or symbolic sites, but are more so hitting and putting cities and countries under siege, with the help of recruits they have acquired from poor and marginal neighborhoods all over, this type of recruitment is called

“In effect, terrorists’ acts should be viewed as “violent language.” For them, the genuine power of terrorism is that it functions as propaganda. The result is behavior modification of the target audience by both coercive and persuasive means (Denton, 2004, p. 4)”. Terrorists use these evil acts to send messages to their victims to emphasize their “Don’t Fuck With Us” axiom and mentality.

Finally, This topic is up to date and is one of the hottest topics on political, social and even financial stage not only withing the US but worldwide, due to the Islamic terrorism spread. This topic is crucial to understand the basis of terrorism and related possible charges, for someone who is not aware of “ ' Terroristic ' Messages ' charges. It may help to understand, that terroristic speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and in particular that to be considered as ' Terroristic ' Messages ', the message might not only be verbal, but symbolic, or as a support for terrorists ( financial, moral, distributed in any type of medias). One can be considered as a terrorist supporter, without even ever meeting terrorists and speaking with them. In the era of the social media, and Internet, it 's dangerous without being a supporter to consult the forbidden, and running by terrorist web- pages, because, one can be considered liable and accused. Consequently, the

With the advent of a new age of Terrorism sweeping the world since the 9/11 attacks on America, much debate has followed as to whether the prevention of terrorist attacks should take prevalence over basic civil liberties enjoyed by any civilian of a liberal democracy. If we take the definition of civil liberties to be “Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference” , it is very hard to envisage a society in which both can exist.

This topic is important and relevant to modern society: because it discusses how law enforcement addressing of civil liberties pertain to adherents of domestic extremism. The reason for its importance is because it gives law enforcement the tools that are needed and the ability to address civil liberties issues regarding adherents that are involved in domestic extremist activity.

Soriano begins his exploration of the relationship between media and terrorism with the words of Marshall McLuham, whose statement that “without communication, terrorism would not exist” is taken by Soriano to be “relatively precocious”, but essentially correct. Though terrorism existed prior to mass media, Soriano argues that it was always about making a public statement, and that new technologies have simply allowed the

On that note, we must ask ourselves this: how free is freedom of speech allowed to be? Free enough to voice an opinion but restraining

“If the media were not there to report terrorist acts and to explain their political and social significance...terrorism as such would cease to exist” said John O'Sullivan, an editor of the Times of London.1 This is also the way many other people feel about the recent increase in terrorist activity; they feel that the media is causing it. The media is doing this by fulfilling the terrorists' need for publicity.2 Terrorists need media publicity in order to get their views spread to the public.3 Because of this need for publicity, terrorists are committing their acts of terrorism in areas where a lot of publicity will be gained; the United States and Western Europe are the most recent targets. The bombings of the federal building in

The Washington based Center for Security Policy, sponsored an undercover survey and learned that Islamic schools in America are exposed to widespread radicalism and three out of four Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism. To counter the brainwashing machine of the doctrine of “Allegiance and Disavowal”, it is crucial to focus on the curriculum of Islamic community schools in the west and the Friday Mosque sermons. There is also a need for a more effective outreach to the Muslim community, as it could lead to identifying potential local threats, and preventing any future attacks.