Hate Speech Restrictions

     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

According to the University of Colorado, many political jurisdictions have enacted laws that forbid destructive speech. These laws give the police power to investigate persons suspect of committing hate speech. If found guilty, the persons are tried and punished according to the law. Although many insist that hate speech should be illegal, the First Amendment still stands; the right of free speech applies to every citizen of the United States and if restrictions are set, then that liberty is taken away.

In the name of free speech, hate speech should not be tolerated. Hate speech has devastating effects on the people and communities it is targeted at. Left unchecked hate speech can lead to harmful and violent effects. Over the past few years, the effects of hate speech used on women, homosexuals, ethnic groups and religious minorities have become more and more apparent. Hate speech can be very divisive in many of the situations it is used, depending on who interprets the expression can vary how people react, due to hate speech, not being easy defend when it does not hurt that certain person or community. If left uncheck hate speech can develop into harmful narratives that remain. While hate speech is not against the law, some have begun

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

A few college campuses across America have attempted to craft speech code regulations that restrict speech based on a fighting words approach, meaning they’ve tried to make hate speech on campuses punishable by applying the fighting words law into the college campus setting. As Timothy Shiell says in Campus Hate Speech on Trial they base this argument on three points: “1. The First Amendment does not protect fighting words. 2. Some campus hate speech constitutes fighting words. Thus 3. Campus hate speech codes punishing and preventing fighting words do not violate the First Amendment.” Two of the universities that have used this logic to create speech restrictions include the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. While both speech codes have been struck down in court, these two codes were constructed with past cases and failed codes in mind, so that they’ve indisputably come the closest to being codes that the Supreme Court deems constitutional. Despite the ruling that these codes are unconstitutional, many advocates think that flaws were not in the speech codes, but rather, in the court’s decision.

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 thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

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.

The Freedom of speech is very expansive filled with loop holes and with this comes many cases that have change the American history. The rights of free speech, free express for all such as gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability has help to encourage society development and helps to encourage equality for everyone. It is always bad intention to use the right of to fuel hate, prejudice and other crimes of violence. For example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case that challenged the speech of individual speech that was exhibit imminent lawless action or used words to incite or direct an action.

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 amendment gives us freedom of speech, but it is sensible enough to protect from fraud, defamation, shouting fire when there is no fire and etc. Those limitation is to keep from inciting riots and hurting individuals. However, hate speech is defined by dictionary.com as speech that, "attacks... a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability." But what if someone wanted to express their beliefs, such as a child saying they hate black bears at the zoo? The parent could either suggest to the child to be quite and ignore them (censorship) or tape their mouth shout and force them to follow the parent around the zoo (limiting free speech). This is an extreme

The argumentative paper “How can we ban insults against Jews, but not Muslims” by William Saletan discusses his opinion upon how insults have been selectively banned on within countries. Saletan is a writer from the online magazine Slate and he primarily writes about science, technology, and politics. Saletan discussed how multiple bans restricting the use of slurs and derogatory words about Jewish people exist around the world. His criticism is about how these bans are unique to those of the Jewish faith and do not include another heavily criticized religious group the Muslim people of the world. In this appeal to the average educated America adult, he stressed the idea of favoring free speech over potentially “silencing minorities” (Saletan 96). He

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

One of the greatest fears of the current age is the belief that there is freedom of offense. The calls for punishment of hateful and hurtful speech is the rallying cry of many (4). I do not believe that this well intentioned wish for safety from hateful speech is the way we go about furthering society. Yes many people's speech is hateful, but we should not censor it. Yes this can do harm to the listener, but it is abundantly clear that those who make judgements on what is acceptable speech or not can draw lines so as to limit speech that would limit debate. Furthermore, I recognize aggrieved groups such as Jews and gays, I am a member of both wish to limit hateful speech by appealing to authority figures (160-161) But there is a great

I believe that censorship of hate speech is necessary to a certain extent, for example hate speech that is violent toward others should be censored because if it is not that we are denying the students that the hate speech is directed toward an equal opportunity to an education. If the students are afraid to go to school that what good is school?

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.