Hate Speech Bans

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

The purpose of this paper is to discuss public school districts' limits on "hate" speech and

It is very important to be aware that the media is capable of controlling the flow of information that citizens receive. Furthermore, much of the content suppressed in this country is for fear of retribution from others. When governments and other institutions suppress information, citizens are not able to address matters concerning their country, as well as around the globe. In ‘The Decline of American Press Freedom’ by Anne Applebaum, Applebaum explains a recent controversy with Yale University and the publishing of a contentious comic in a scholarly report on the global consequences of political comics. The comics in question were satirical in nature and displayed the Islamic prophet Muhammad in an offensive manner. In an aniconic religion where visual depiction of the prophet is inherently blasphemous, the Islamic response to these comics were violent. When an analysis of the comics and the cultural backlash was written, instead of publishing it, Yale University swept it under the rug for fear of offending Islamic extremists. Applebaum argues that if “Yale University Press refuses to publish [the comics], then that makes it much harder for anybody else to treat the cartoon controversy as a legitimate matter for scholarly and political debate” (Applebaum 640). By not allowing the publishing of this analysis, Yale University is censoring what the American populace have access to in terms of global controversy. The issue becomes trivialized because institutions fear retribution from extremist groups. Without these scholarly points of reference of this issue and others, it is difficult to have a serious conversations about the ramifications of political and religious satire. This leads to people remaining uneducated and ignorant of these serious issues, and liable to repeat these same actions that so sorely offended an extremist

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 speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist rally turned violent, the argument on whether or not hate speech should be banned has become increasingly more relevant. Those supporting the ban argue that this kind of speech eventually creates a society that doesn’t accept the affected minorities as equals, and can shame them into silence. On the other side, people argue this would infringe upon free speech rights. In Glenn Greenwald’s article, “In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Being used to Silence Left Wing Beliefs,” he addresses how this ban might affect left-wing activism, and the fallacies in the arguments supporting the ban. Greenwald mainly relies on logos to back up his thesis; that a hate speech ban would not work in America. The problem he faces with this as his argument is that it makes the assumption that these same issues would arise in America. Other than a brief mention of his time as a lawyer to back up one talking point, there is very little ethos. While his tone throughout the article feels very neutral and informative, he makes poor use of logos and ethos, leading to an ineffective argument.

Freedom of speech, the most quoted right of the United States Constitution but, what does this freedom really mean? People have struggled over this issue time and time again, arguing a whole array of things from total censorship to none at all. According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (First Amendment). Many argue that this gives U.S. citizens the right to say whatever they want, without exception. However, many disagree with this statement (maybe elaborate on this sentence). According to the Supreme Court there are a few exceptions to this freedom. Slander, defamation, fighting words and obscenity are all not protected under the First Amendment. The main issue derived from this is whether or not the government should be able to censor hate speech or if that is a violation of the Constitution. One one hand, it is argued that it should be allowed in order to protect minorities and individuals from being slandered and targeted. On the other hand, it is said that the government should not have that authority, as such laws will undoubtedly lead to censorship in a way that truly does limit free speech. These issues have been discussed and argued over for years, with the focus always returning to the text of the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides valuable guidance to the country and is viable on determining laws and court cases concerning the issue of hate speech in present day America. Although, it has proven

Jeremy Waldron argues in favor of hate speech restrictions in his book “The Harm in Hate Speech”. He presents the central argument that vulnerable minorities are in need of hate speech regulation to protect them from harm. Another argument he presents is that such regulation must be a content-based regulation, as opposed to a time, place, and manner restriction that is usually employed to prevent certain kinds of speech. A final argument he uses is that speech is the harmful action, rather than speech simply causing harmful actions. I do not find his arguments to be compelling enough reasons to support restricting free speech with hate speech laws.

In the past couple of decades till now, there have been countless numbers of hate speech cases on college campuses across the country. Due to hate speech taking on many forms such as written, spoken, and symbolic, the number of incidents have skyrocketed. While many colleges have attempted to regulate hate speech on campus, other colleges have found that they have limited too much speech and that their regulations are starting to go against the first amendment. Three incidents of hate speech on college campuses in the years 1993-1995 occurred in the college campuses of Penn, UCR, and Caltech respectively.

Imagine a situation where you are crossing the street for a class. Then someone you do not know stops you at the signal light, telling you that from now on, you are prohibited to say American slang because it is considered to be too informal and wrong, and that you must obey this rule because he is an authority. What would you think of that? Ian Buruma doubts the rationality of it. Buruma, who advocates the right of the ordinary people to speak freely, utilizes multiple, varying tones in his essay, The Freedom to Offend, to make clear his advocacy for freedom of speech. The overall plain and simple tone draws close the readers and encourages us to read; the appropriately and smartly used sarcasm sharply harm those people who hinder our rights to offend; the indifference that he shows towards the people who frighten us unreasonably tells us not to be threatened just because we are pushed by authorities; and the seriousness elicit deeper thoughts from the readers to think of the problem. These flexibly changing manners of speaking are integrated into one reconciling thesis ─ as long as what we say does not elicit an inevitable strife or violence, we should be

This paper is a comparative analysis of hate speech laws between Japan and United States. This essay will analyze hate rhetoric stemming from the years 1980-to present day. Today’s political climate has generated a rebirth of hate speech in both countries. Hate speech is a concerning matter for those who believe in the right to free speech and expression. They want to stop the hate, but at the same time, maintain the constitution. In support of my hypothesis, I will use scholarly reviews, landmark cases, and personal experiences.

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

Many pro-speech advocates argue that policies restricting hate speech are always overbroad which leads to a chilling effect in which people are afraid to say anything controversial in fear of punishment and thus, ideas are suppressed in the process. Nevertheless, in the case of hate speech, rights of students to a proper education, uninterrupted by intentional expressions of hate should easily surpass students and professors’ rights to complete free speech. Hate speech on campus causes psychological harm and emotional distress to those that it is directed towards and is a form of discrimination that strips its target of their dignity. Vulnerable minorities subjected to hate speech feel unwelcome, which disrupts their education and opportunities. Additionally, hate speech silences its victims rendering them powerless in comparison to the strength of the majority. This effect is in direct opposition of the ultimate goal of free speech. The objective of free speech is to have controversial speech answered with more speech by the opposing side; however, hate speech eliminates the opposing side from engaging in the countering speech response, thus the exchanging of ideas is disrupted. Furthermore, the dangers of hate speech are apparent when looking at countries comparable to the United States, such as Germany, England, and Canada, all of which have laws in place that make hate speech a punishable crime. If almost all other democratic countries fear the consequences of hate speech enough to compose laws proscribing it, then this type of harm should not be allowed on campuses which encompass young and vulnerable individuals. Overall, hate speech undermines the peace on campus, interferes with the educational environment of minorities, and is contradictory to the mission of free speech in that more speech is

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.

Hate speech, what is it? The definition of hate speech, according to Mari J. Matsuda, author of "Assaultive Speech and Academic Freedom, is "…(a word of group of words) of which is to wound and degrade by asserting the inherent inferiority of a group" (151). In my own words hate speech is a humiliation and demeaning slur of words specifically used to disgrace a person for their race, religion, or sexual habits. There is now a controversy if hate speech should be regulated on college campuses or not. I have read a few articles with the author being either for or against regulating hate speech. My opinion is that yes, we should regulate hate speech on college campuses.