Hate Groups in the United States Essay

A 2005 study conducted by National Institute of Justice, found that the Federal Government and all but one state, Wyoming, have laws related to hate crimes. A consistent problem identified by this study is there in no consistency in defining what constitutes a hate crime. (Carrie F. Mulford, Ph.D., & Michael Shively, Ph.D., Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues, 257, Nat’l Inst Just., (2007). “The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime—also called bias crime—as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” ld.

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

Since the election of Donald Trump, the country seems to be in a state of division. Protests against the president’s executive orders and movements like Black Lives Matter has caused many hate groups to make a reappearance into the main-stream media. White supremacist, white nationalists, and alt-right leaders are speaking their minds about the perceived discrimination against whites. These types of white advocacy groups have gone through an evolution since the times of the Ku Klux Klan and have created new techniques for recruiting members. These units can be a type of love/hate relationship, and once people have joined, they find it very difficult to leave. But hate can be overcome; through education, tolerance training, and even counter-protesting. Because of feelings of discontent, fear in the loss of white power, and a lack of experience with groups outside of their race, America is seeing a dangerous and unfortunate rise in these types of hate groups.

<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

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 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.

Hate Crime in the United States of America THESIS: In this research paper, information will be given on hate crime in the United States of America. It’s best to know about these types of crimes before it’s too late because it’s rarely reported or spoken about but does occur on regular bases. Hate crime didn't come about until the early 1980's. It's sad how these types of crimes still occur so many years later; there are innocent people who are attacked simply because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. Based on the articles, hate crime in the USA is very common and the chances to be a victim are high enough. Hate crimes are ignorant and pointless, they need to be stopped.Done to many different people in many different

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

SPLC, The Southern Poverty Law Center, is a non-profit organization here in the U.S. They monitor the activities of hate groups and other extremists such as neo-Nazi’s, Ku Klux Khan, antigovernment militias and much more. Currently they are tracking 1,600+ groups to ensure the safety of many underrepresented groups. When you arrive on their web page you can expect to see many articles of hate crimes they are representing in court. They also have a Hate Map; this map of the United States can show you the 917 groups that are currently operating. You can also click different icons to learn more about different minority groups and how you can fight hate and bigotry.

Supremacy : the state of condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status. Why is this so important? I’ll tell you why, the supremacy of many “ Hate Groups “ such as the KKK ( Ku Klux Klan ) or any other hate group has been affecting many lives of U.S. citizens such as the African Americans. Based off the murder case of James Byrd Jr., he was tricked, beaten, and horrifically chained and dragged by a truck filled with three white supremacists. Given the circumstances in the nation today and our recent Charlottesville protest, America hasn’t changed much. It has been quiet since Mr. Byrd’s death in 1998 and not only til 19 years later do we have hate groups such as the Nazi coming out marching in Charlottesville. Hate

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

When the first amendment is brought up, one of the first things that comes to mind is free speech. Even though we don’t give it much thought, our free speech does have limits. The more obvious limits—such as knowing that you can’t threaten people or shout “Fire!” in a crowded space—make sense because it’s easy to see how they cause direct harm. These general limits are important in order to ensure a safe and peaceful society, but when it comes to voicing prejudice views, it becomes difficult to determine what should and should not be restricted by the first amendment. After all, when negative and hurtful opinions are directed at a specific group of people, it becomes hard to see how protecting them could be a good thing. The important thing to remember is that when sharing these views becomes harmful and leads to harassment, it is no longer protected under the first amendment. However, everyone sees things differently, so drawing the line between what is “just offensive” and harassment needs to be determined and treated on a case-by-case basis. This will not only allow us to come to a solution for these individual problems, but it leaves room for discussion which will help to combat the root cause of prejudice.

The one key place that hate speech may lose First Amendment protection is speech which may lead to violence. This is first seen in the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio which reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group previously charged with inciting violence through speech served to narrow what would be considered “clear and present danger” through speech. The petitioner was charged with violating Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute which made it unlawful to advocate crime, methods of terrorism, or to voluntarily assembly with any group to teach/advocate doctrines of hate. The United States Supreme Court granted review and concluded that, because Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute did not draw a distinction between teaching the need for force or violence and preparing a group for violent action, the statute unconstitutionally intruded on First Amendment rights. The case stated, “freedoms of speech and press do not permit a state to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)