Hate Speech Research Paper

The United States FBI defines hate crimes as “a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” This type of bigotry-driven crime has been a huge issue in the area of politics and justice ever since history began. Such crimes have become increasingly visible over the years due to the advances in technology, and social networking sites that have given a new platform to these issues. As the visibility of hate crime conditions become commonplace, they also become easily identifiable in everyday life. The issue that then arises is that these conditions have not yet become illegal to the degree that they should be held to. Hate crimes should be held at a higher penalty, at the federal level, due to the nature and intent of the crime at hand.

Technology―it’s the focal point of our lives, from sending a quick text to checking the latest news. But the real debate comes when the conversation switches to cyberbullying, which is customarily described as an act that is “repeated, hostile, and severe with the intent to embarrass, threaten, or harass” (“The Dangers of Cyberbullying” by Warnke, lines 26-27). Bullies in the real world can and do get prosecuted, so what makes this any difference. In some cases, the bullying is so deleterious that the victim commits suicide. If all of this can be prevented, then lives will be saved and children will be able to live without the fear of being bullied. The three sources “The Dangers of Cyberbullying” by Brett Warnke, “Sacrificing the First Amendment

This to me can be summed up in one word: sad. It’s truly saddening to me that we’ve become this way. Where everything is taken to the most extreme levels and assumed to be hate speech or that it of course must be meant in the worst possible way. There are of course times where people do take things too far and mean them in the worst of ways. Although, that is not what this is about. This is about the destruction of free speech to the extent of teaching people to might as well not have “free thinking.” We might as well go around apologizing to one another for the things we thought or even almost thought. Not to mention if we almost, or almost though about, them being said? Wouldn’t that be

Hate speech is rhetoric which attacks an individual or group on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The impact has taken a social and psychological

Students, parents, and teachers everywhere are being affected by cyberbullying and it is getting worse every day. With technology advancing as fast as it is, everything is starting to revolve around the internet even bullying. Cyberbullying is a problem especially in schools. As the rate of cyberbullying in schools increases, concerned citizens are raising the question: should students be punished for what they say online outside of school? While some people may say limiting students’ freedom of speech online is the best way to stop cyberbullying, the reality is limiting a students’ freedom of speech online is an unacceptable idea because it goes against the First Amendment, and, in truth, it would never get rid of the problem.

<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

In the history of The United States, there has always been a history of discrimination that has come from many different areas by many different people that have led to violent discrimination acts to members of our society (Miller, 2003). These violent acts have been based on members of society bias views of others race, sex, disabilities, sexual preferences, and religion (Greenhouse, 1993). The members of these groups that have been discriminated upon are minority members of our society that have had to fight for their rightful place as a member of the American Society, and still, fight prejudice today.

Its just that people should be able to be free of material on the Internet that insults them. The Internet is way most of the hate speech material is presented to the world. Like for example, such things as the beliefs the nazis that of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.

Envision ambulating down the street and then out of the blue someone shouts obscenities predicated on the way people look or because of what they affiliate with. Incidents involving animosity happen everyday, and most are looked at as daily occurrences. With the current state of hate speech laws, there is nothing that could be done to put culpability on the instigator. Hate has a strong connection to United States history. Slaves were a result of being hateful to those who were different, and Jim Crow laws were also a consequence of this hatred. As much time has passed since then, America has become more progressive, although there are still people who are hateful of others for they way they are. Hate speech laws are necessary in the United States and should be passed because passing them would create and foster a more tolerant society, help to decrease the negative risk associated with them, and prevent violent acts of hate which tend to be preceded by hate speech.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When considering situations where censorship is necessary, it is important to analyze who might need protection. Often, children need to have the material they watch censored, because they themselves cannot distinguish how raw the material they are watching is. We need to protect our youth, as well as people of all other ages from that kind of raw material. It is possible that the material could be something of the hating nature. I believe that even though hate speech is not a possitive use of free speech, it is a right that is everyone's to practice. It is only when that speech begins to flirt with the idea of doing something about that hate, and possibly putting people in risk, when it should be controlled. There are

With the popularization and expansion of the internet in recent years, America and other Western countries have found themselves developing into media-dominated cultures. Social media platforms, forums, and other types of online interaction are becoming primary forms of communication between people with similar or differing views, bringing political topics into daily discussion. However, the implications of such a broad and unrestrained network lead to negative outcomes. Whether it be in the form of a direct slur used on Twitter or a slight jab in a discussion board, the ongoing presence of racism on the internet cannot be denied. Although some forms may appear more indirectly, the effects are not diminished; implicit forms of racism are just as impactful as direct attacks. This paper argues that the internet serves as a carrier of racism by allowing racism to thrive through forms of racial microaggressions and cloaked websites. Toward the end of the essay, possible solutions for this issue will be discussed as well.

Just a couple of months ago white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville to protest the tearing down of the statue of Robert E Lee. The racism and hate they spread through their march is unquestionably disgusting and serves no purpose in our society today. This event has led to social media sites such as Twitter to crack down even harder in a plight they started over a year ago to silence hateful speech. While there are some occasional dissenters, the general population agrees with the opinion that this speech is awful in every sense. With that being said, censoring their right to free speech is a bit too rash. We can all agree that free speech is one of the most important rights we have, and with President Trump throwing around the term “fake news” at major news organizations, it is more important than ever to protect that freedom. The article “The case for restricting hate speech” by Laura Beth Nielsen of the Los Angeles Times gives an argument for why hate speech should be censored. While she provides valid points, with the absence of factual statistics, none of them are strong enough to support her thesis that hate speech should be banned. I believe that in almost every instance, hate speech should remain protected just as much as our right to free speech.

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.

Censorship helps to evade conflict in different ways, “Censoring hate helps to promote peace” (11 Biggest Pros and Cons of Censorship). By censoring hate we can stop the rumors of hate through our society, and we could only worry about our community, and not for those who hate. There is wealth violent material in Internet that can be accessed with ease, this exposure is dangerous because it makes

Social media should not moderate the comments or points of views from society due to the fact that everyone has the right to express what is on their mind. The U.S. created the First Amendment which protects the freedom of expression in essence, giving society the ability to state their opinion without fear of retribution. It is difficult to think of negative, hurtful, and spiteful comments being protected by the freedom of speech. The information and posts on social media has such a great influence over the population of the world, however it is important to remember that trolls as well as their comments should be taken lightly yet respected because it is their own opinion. Nonetheless people have become highly sensitive to trolls or any comments in which they might not agree with. Additionally it seems that trolls have a strong hold in social media yet, who are these trolls? Trolls make heinous comments on social media and are thrilled to keep anonymity as their profile. People who are behind an electronic screen are not always the most transparent and credible commentators. Many will argue that censorship is needed in social media as it could prevent excessive negativity online. Although this may have a case, if people allowed censorship of harsh and hateful believes what else will be censored in the future. Censorship in social media has the potential to create a deceitful view of society.