Hateful Digital Hate Speech

Social media can connect millions of people together, in any instant location. However, many of these platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, have blasphemous users who fire up heated debates, following up with explicit language. Such opinions often times involve incitement and defamation targeted against the opposing party. However, because the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, the U.S. Government has not strictly reprimanded the misuse of the amendment. Some citizens view hate speech as a form of speech that attacks and offends an individual or group based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or ethnic origin while others see it as a part of the First Amendment, and having it appealed, will precede with negative criticisms. There are others who are not concerned of the topic at hand completely which identifies how impactful this problem is. It has been apparent more so on social media, where people demonstrate their right to freedom of speech because they are more likely to voice their opinions individually when others are not present. The debate still continues to decide if the First Amendment should be revised due to hate speech on social media since it has promoted indirect violence, incivility amongst the online communities and has lowered ethical codes in the American society.

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 order to reduce the astonishing number of hate crimes in the United States, the Federal Government should restrict hate speech, and the expressions of hateful ideas, in all its forms, in all places, both public and private. However, it is imperative that hate speech be defined first. Contrary to some opinions, it is possible to accurately define hate speech, because hate speech does not actually have many elusive forms. Hate speech includes fighting words as defined in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, and words that incite violence or aggression towards a specific group based on sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, or political orientation by the provision of information that is not valid against all members of the group. The wording

The freedom of speech is a part of the bill of rights-obviously important enough to be one of the first things mentioned. Just as it was important in 1771, our freedoms are well established today in 2015. Here in the age of technology, the internet is where the crime takes place and all could be victims. The founding fathers didn’t write the bill of rights concerned with our Facebook rants and who they can be directed to. So finding a solution to fit a 1771 document in today’s problems can be difficult.

During the turbulent tides of the 2016 election, the question of whether or not hate speech is protected under the First Amendment has been brought up multiple times. Hate speech is defined by the American Bar Association as “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” One side argues that hateful comments should not and are not protected due to the oppression they bring. After all, why would a nation that promotes freedom and equality for all allow the harmful words of others to persist? Conversely, others argue that the First Amendment covers all forms of speech, hateful or not, and to not allow hate speech is both a violation of

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

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

The first amendment to the constitution is one that never seems to be debated itself, but its interpretation is often times debated. In saying this I mean that most everyone agrees that people should have the right to free speech, but what is often debated is where to draw the line. The question is, what is the difference is between someone using their right to free speech and them spewing hate speech. The first amendment is quite possibly the most important to maintaining our form government. It allows us, the people to have a say and speak on political topics among other things. The full first amendment, which was officially put into place alongside the second amendment in 1791, is made up of, for the most part, two basic points. It touches on religion and preventing freedom of speech or press “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.” The first of these points that touches on religion was first formed based upon one of the main reasons that

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.

According to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the people of the nation are entitled to the freedom of speech, but not all speech is the same. The internet provides us with an infinite amount of information, grants us access to virtually everything we could want and acts as an unrestrained vehicle of communication. In the day and age where technology is advancing and social media and internet are of rising importance, the Supreme Court of the United States has been faced with the challenge of deciding what constitutes a true threat made on social media websites.

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 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

To begin with, are you aware that Jews, Muslims, and LGBT’s are more targeted in hate crimes than any other.

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.