Hate Speech In Social Networks

The writer of this article, Ronald Eissens is the Secretariat for the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH) and this article discusses the problem of hate speech. I am going to use this article in the first body paragraph and. Some other body paragraphs as well. I use this article as a source because of three reasons. First – in the authors' view in this article Eissens explain strongly about hate speech and its consequences with evidence. Second – Eissen supports the topic by strong and truthful cases that the prohibition of hate speech is not contradictory to free speech. Third - Eissen explains well what is the best protection against hate speech. Generally, I found this document use full as the source for my next essay and to argue about the topic.

While it is true that minority groups suffer pain and injury as the result of racist speech, we cannot escape the idea of allowing “hate mongering” for the interest of society in whole or in part. We need a free flow of ideas in all matters of dealing with one another especially in our democracy. There is an imperative need for us for a full understanding of the nature and extent of our speech, in this way no harm is inflicted.

     While a clear and concise definition remains forthcoming, it is easier to establish what hate speech is not. Hate speech is wrong but legal in the United States of America mostly because we have the freedom of speech. But the First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. In this case, people are allowed to use hate speech and not get arrested or any legal actions against them. The best way to counter obnoxious speech such as this is with more speech. Persuasion, not violence, is the solution to this problem (Jouhari).

Every day, millions of people use social media to either converse with their peers or to post pictures. There has been much discussion on whether or not individuals should be prosecuted for rude statements made on social media. Individuals should not be prosecuted for derogative statements made on social media. Although some may say that prosecuting cyberbullies for statements made on social media is beneficial, it would have many negative consequences. Prosecuting individuals for statements made on the internet would discourage personal responsibility, be a violation of the first amendment, and squander tax payers' money.

Throughout history, crimes have been committed worldwide. Murder, assault, and other crimes have been dealt with some kind of punishment, but one crime stays unnoticed and not cared about. Hate crimes, a major conflict in communities, have been showing up without anyone noticing. People sometimes commit them unaware of the consequences due to the lack of understanding what a hate crime really is. A hate crime is a motive to hurt or insult a certain group of people. It is more harsh and dangerous than most crimes because it not only affects the victim, but the whole group of that victim’s characteristic. With the underestimation of hate crimes, murder, assault, and other crimes will increase highly.

Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to

Eissens, the secretariat for the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), argues that online hate speech should be regulated. He thinks regulation will deter extremist groups from using it to incite racist, religious, or discriminatory violence. His argument is based on the claim that hate groups use the Internet as a platform to spread their hateful messages. “Incitement through electronic means is not different from incitement by traditional means.” Additionally, Eissens states that regulating online hate speech is aimed to deter hate crimes, not to change individual ideologies or restrict the freedom of expression. Eissens also claims that hate disrupts society in all of its facets, including government and commerce. Hate speech

It seems like the issue of race has been the plague of this country for longer than anyone really has wanted with topics that should have been erased from history years prior with the civil rights movements of the 1960's. Race is what has been the main reason for the identification to discriminate towards minorities if it's either black, white or from a different country all together it leads to heated arguments that can spawn hatred on social media towards people from different walks of life. Nevertheless, even in the 21st century more than 50 years since the end of the civil rights movements, the idea of race is still in the spotlight even after all the progressive achievements that's been achieved towards the ignorance of different people

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

Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well

Hate speech has been defined as speech that expresses hatred towards a specific group, often due to factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, (Merriam-Webster). This type of speech not only causes psychological and emotional harm to it’s listeners but is harmful to society as a whole. Richard Delgado in his article, “Words That Wound,” discusses how hate speech is one of the more insidious manners that racial hatred is communicated in this country because it makes the victim feel inferior due to circumstances of birth, and the negative effects they suffer as a consequence of this speech while interacting with people outside their race and with social institutions. He goes on to say, “Such language injures the dignity and self regard of the person to whom it is addressed,

From initial inspection it is evident that academic definitions on hate crime have proved to be elusive and difficult to fully conceptualise. Its ambivalence is such that definitions of hate crime and the premise behind hate crimes can vary from academic to academic, which evidently can cause mass counter-productivity in both practical and policy terms (this can clearly be seen due to its allusiveness), of which Hall (2013:4) sardonically observes:

Hate speech is speech that is intended to degrade, intimidate, or inflect violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or based on a disability. Hate speech now includes messages of gender, sexual orientation, religious views, and physical and mental inferiority as well.

In conclusion, the previous study generally discuss about the hate speech presented in political context since in the past the start from political incident. However, since the recent growth in frequency of hate speech can not be found only in politic condition

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.