Hate Speech Synthesis Essay

A 2005 study conducted by National Institute of Justice, found that the Federal Government and all but one state, Wyoming, have laws related to hate crimes. A consistent problem identified by this study is there in no consistency in defining what constitutes a hate crime. (Carrie F. Mulford, Ph.D., & Michael Shively, Ph.D., Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues, 257, Nat’l Inst Just., (2007). “The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime—also called bias crime—as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” ld.

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

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

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

According to Charles R. Lawrence III, hate speech in the United States is unacceptable and represent it’s kind of restriction on the use of free speech. On his speech on hate speech, he claims that the hate speech silences the voices of the minority groups among the citizens and causes them to be excluded from free exchange of ideas and the promotion of their right to freedom of expression. In his speech, he first examines the Supreme Court outcome and decision in Brown vs. Board of Education case, where he urges that this is one of the most important facts on the equal protection laws in the United States of America. In this case, he shows that prejudice is part of racist speech. Furthermore, he extends that everyone is entitled to participation as a member of society and that separate schools undermine the idea of expression. Additionally, he asserts that hate speech restricts the involvement of these minority groups and thus it should be legislated.

The phrase “Hate Crime” rose to prominence in the 1980s, in an attempt to describe crimes against someone based on their race or religion. These crimes were motivated, at least in part and sometimes in entirety, by bias against African Americans and Jews. Since that time, the term has expanded to include illegal acts against a person, organization, and their property based on the criminal’s bias against the victim’s minority class. These minority classes include race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or gender reassignment. These are specific crimes because not only are they crimes against someone, they are committed based on who someone is (Martin 1996). This paper will discuss the history of hate crimes and the response of law enforcement officers to hate crimes.

<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

The topic of hate crime is so controversial because there can be different perspectives on the whole issue, which can eventually cause a massive huge debate on the entire matter. In Ben Gillis article called Understanding Hate Crime Statutes and Building Towards a Better System in Texas, the author separates his points in a way that can give the reader a better way of understanding the Hate Crime laws and the effects of it. Gillis’s way of dissecting the article is extremely effective due to the fact that not only he explains what exactly a hate crime is in its basic form but he also explains hate crime in its entirety, and he also shows how some states adapt to the whole issue. People may ask in what way does it make it in a sense “illegal”

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

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.

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,

This speech grew to action, which led Nazi leaders to implement the “Final Solution,” and the massacre of six million Jews.  But what about hate crimes today in the United States, how are hate-based murders different from a murder of a random individual.  The answer to that question is in the brutality of the crime.  Hate crimes are, for the most part, inherently more brutal because of deeply rooted ideals between two opposing groups.  This brutality has led many, including former president Bill Clinton to call for legislation against hate crimes (Hellwege).

Racism can be “defined as the hatred of one person by another or the belief that another person is less than human because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes” (“What”). The face of racism over the past 50 years has changed but yet, some still stay the same. People made laws against racism and it is not as blunt anymore. But opinions and stereotypes will remain which will cause others to still be treated differently.

What is a hate speech for one may be an empowering speech for another. Many believe these speeches contribute to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs that allow for several different aspects of a situation to be analyzed. Others believe these words will start violent actions against those hated upon. However, old adages about sticks and stones exist for a reason: they are true. No matter the individual, people are capable of ignoring the hate if they so wish. Sometimes, many make claims so outrageous that not even the most zealous of advocates would argue them, bold statements such as saying all Middle Easterners should be tortured because they are all terrorists. It is not worth anyone’s time to argue against these, and creating a political issue surrounding that claim makes one appear foolish. However, several hate speeches are beneficial to the

What do the words Cracker, Kike, Nigger, Jap, Chinc, Faggot, Queer, Dike and Spic all have in common? They are all derogatory remarks that humans call one another on a daily basis. Why can people use these terms and not have to worry about receiving any punishment or any ridicule? The reason is because of the First Amendment right of free speech. The first amendment gives people the right to basically say anything that comes to mind whether it is something nice or something like a derogatory remark. The first amendment is good and freedom of speech has its advantages like most things, but however, it also has its disadvantages. The disadvantages are that people can say words that are extremely hurtful