Hate Speech Essay

Hate crimes can be shown in different ways, people do not feel safe because many people are becoming victims of it. Such as when the incident happened with Lebron James in his home in Los Angeles California. Lebron James home was vandalized with racist graffiti , making his home feel unsafe because of racial hate that is still going on in America. Hate crimes like vandalism and verbal threats are not physically abusive but can still affect someone mentally. Vandalism can feel like threats , because you never know what will happen after seeing something like that. Also in California there is a lot of Hate crimes in that state. There was 931 hate crimes in California in 2016. It had the most Hate crimes than any other state that year. Hate crimes can also be shown in multiple acts such as murder , aggravated assault , intimidation and rape. Sexual assault is a Hate crime in America that happens to many people for the last 2 decades. One incident where a young boy named Jason Mattison jr. who was openly gay but was viciously and

Charles R. Lawrence III, a law professor at Georgetown University, released an article named “On Racist Speech” against the growing frequency of racial violence, especially in University campuses in the U.S., to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1989. Lawrence begins his article by focusing on the message that hate speech “sends a destructive message to minorities that they are inferior.” The author brings up many other examples to support his message such as the court case Brown vs the Board of Education, instances of racist posters and fliers in college dormitories, and protesting against a “fighting words exemption.” Lawrence argues that although it is difficult for the government to write a law that will prevent racist speech without

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

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Lawrence sheds light upon the very turbulent issue of the First Amendment right to the Freedom of speech in contrast to the inequality caused by its misuse through racially bias speech. The author states that the University officials should endorse some sort policy that will protect the rights of those who are victimized by this “racial nuisance,” while at the same time not censoring our constitutional right of free speech, “I am troubled by the way the debates has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response universities attempts to regulate harassing speech” (Lawrence，65). Continually, Lawrence defines the set of ideals that the First Amendment was based on, particularly; equality. He goes on to show the audience that this very balance is

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

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

Author Michael Lieberman’s article, “Hate Crime Laws: Punishment to Fit the Crime”, discusses that violence is intentionally and specifically targeted at individuals because of their personal, and immutable characteristics (Lieberman 81). Based on this statement, it is obvious that when a person mumbles some racial slur under their breath, one can conclude that it is intentional and may lead to some type of confrontation. For example, an openly gay or lesbian student attending college is constantly being taunted and ridiculed because if his or her sexual orientation. Every time the student passes by a particular group of students, they yell out the words “queer” or “faggot”. Based on this example, it is evident that hate crimes do not occur by accident but that they are premeditated and well thought out in advance.

The first dimension of speech that West identifies is perhaps also the most basic part of what is comprehended in the term ‘free speech’: the production and distribution of words. West suggests several ways in which the free distribution of racist hate speech can deprive its targets of the ability to do the same. There is the threat implicit in racist hate speech due to the history of racially motivated violence, the physiological ‘speechlessness’ that can take hold in the aftermath of a fear response such as a hate speech may provoke, and the damage to self-esteem which may prevent the targets of racial hate speech from feeling themselves to have any

Charles Lawrence evokes that racist speech should be regulated to avert defaming the minorities in “On Racist Speech” from the Chronicle of Higher Education. The article addresses that racial insults do not deserve to be under the First Amendment because “the perpetrator’s intention is to injure the victim” (Lawrence 2087). After all, the Supreme Court has asserted that if the perpetrator’s intention is to “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”, then they are not protected under the First Amendment (Lawrence 2086). The racist slurs on the university campus was one of the vexed topics since students should have “the right of an equal education in a safe environment” rather than being surrounded by verbal

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

Over the course of American history, many have taken the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and created wonderful things out of it. Alice Paul is an excellent example: she utilized her right to free speech and press to promote the equality of women and earned them the right to vote, in the midst of World War I. However, many take it the other way and create hate speeches where they tear down one particular group or individual or idea with their crude and blunt remarks. Yet, they are protected by the freedom of speech and the government cannot interfere with their actions, causing many to argue the First Amendment Right cannot be extended to anyone making hurtful remarks. Hate speeches need to be protected by the freedom of speech, as shown in legal documentation, moral issues, and the benefits it creates.

Personally, I think that hate of speech should be protected under all circumstances. Hate speech is defined as expressing hatred of a particular group of people, in other words, offending, threatening or insulting a group, based on race, color, religion, etc. Consciously and/or Unconsciously people in a way or another tend to express in some way hate speech. However, hate speech becomes an issue when it is discriminating a person cultural background or their persona. People need to have clear that having freedom of speech doesn’t mean that they have the right to hurt a person verbally and have them feel offended or threatened. It is totally fine to express our opinions as long as anyone feels discriminated. The undergraduate student that sent

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

We live in a society where the man who holds, arguably, the highest position of authority in the world is free to say things such as “Grab her right in the pussy”, has referred to Mexican men as “bad hombres”, and has mocked a disabled reporter on television. Through legal terms, it is difficult to infringe upon the rights of American citizens by regulating their speech and expression. Morally, however, it is more difficult to live in a society that protects the degrading, disrespectful speech of those that are attempting to spread hatred. There is a thin line that distinguishes freedom of speech from hate speech. The incitement of violence caused by hate speech plagues and cripples our society by threatening the lives of millions of people every day. Protecting hate speech that serves to dehumanize members of our society has proven to have dangerous consequences for everyone.