Hate Speech : The Use Of Hate Speech

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.

Reese feels that hate crime laws would allow the government to begin making strides toward no individual freedom. Thus, people would be told that they cannot “hate” a specific group of people and, therefore, invalidating the personal freedoms of the individual. In addition, Reese states that the First Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to protect safe or uncontroversial or politically correct speech or government approved speech (Reese 137).

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 act was supposed to be a step forward in the nation’s long-stalled efforts to curb racial discrimination. However, it condemns unjustly discriminatory language as “unforgivable,” but it does not legally ban hate speech and sets no penalty for committing it. In the United States, hate speech cases goes through a scrutiny test based on two crucial factors; content-based and content-neutral. Additionally, this test is used by the supreme court to determine the rhetoric of hate speech.

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

The Hate Crime Act is constitutional due to the fact the Act expressly criminalizes violent conduct that results in “bodily injury.” “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” However, while the freedoms of speech and thought under the First Amendment are indeed cherished blessings of liberty, “a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” Moreover, the definitions are clear that “bodily injury” must be an actual physical injury, with emotional or psychological harm being insufficient. Therefore, speech and physical violence must be separated in this

The idea of hate speech has been something that courts can’t seem to find a middle ground about; however, recent strides have brought us closer to eradicating this action. The first major supreme court case regarding hate speech occurred in 1992 in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul involved a young, white male burning a cross on a black family’s front lawn. The supreme court ruled that this action was part of the boy’s free speech guaranteed in the first amendment. People often overlook the fact that the boy could have been held responsible for damaging the family’s property. Another case occurred in 1993 in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, where Mitchell and a group of black men were outside a theater which showed a racially insensitive

John Stuart Mill’s explanation of the harm principle is not as useful as once believed. Although the harm principle does in fact have some logic, it fails to set clear and concise borders regarding what denotes allowable hate speech. The harm principle essentially states that all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. However, speech that causes a definable harm must be censored. For example, merely offensive speech is allowed; however, the context of the offensive speech in question is important in understanding when to apply Mill’s harm principle. The principle has some major flaws, as Mill does not take into consideration the numerous factors that must be examined before deciding whether or not to apply the principle, such as

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

This paper will address some of the issues surrounding hate speech and its regulation. I will explain both Andrew Altman and Jonathan Rauch’s positions in the first two sections. The third section will be on what Altman might say to Rauch’s opposite views. I will then discuss my view that hate speech should never be regulated under any circumstance especially in the name of protecting someone’s psychology, feelings, or insecurities like Altman prescribes. In the end, I will conclude that we should not agree with Altman despite his well intentioned moral convictions to push for hate speech regulation. Although hate speech is a horrible act, people must learn to overcome and persevere through difficult situations and not leave it to the

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

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.