Hateful Digital Hate 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,

     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

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

Opposition to all forms of hate speech laws are quite passionate. People who are adamant against hate speech laws affirm their beliefs through the First Amendment. Believing that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, no matter how terrible, these people go about calling others “snowflakes” just for protesting hate speech. Instead of actually understanding the harmful effects that have been proven by researchers they instead trivialize the effects (Neilsen 10-11). This type of resistive thinking is

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.

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

It was never imagined all those years ago that hatred would be expressed through a computer to affect a person on the other side receiving the narcissism. Hate Speech has a very negative impact on those who are viewing it on the internet. That hatred is then passed along to others to share who have the same beliefs and want to condemn the people who are different from them. All this hatred is on the internet for the world to see. As a result, people have learned to accept it as a social norm in today’s society. This is completely wrong. People should not accept people’s negative criticism. Doing this will lower everyone’s self esteem or allow them to think that being racist or a bigot is acceptable and not punishable. People should be punished for Hate Speech on the internet, Since it IS a crime. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 19 states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression--It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions--For respect of the rights or reputations of others--For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals (Eissens, Ronald).” The majority of the Hate Speech is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and religious minorities. How can there be a bright future for the world when every few months

Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

It seems there is a problem on the Internet with certain types of messages that people post. There are people who argue that anyone has the right to say anything on the Internet. People do have the right of free speech, but the line should be drawn when it comes to hate messages. It is immoral-and should be illegal-to make remarks that are racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic. After all, these verbal attacks are no longer tolerated in the classroom or in the workplace, why should the Internet be different? The problem with the Internet is that there seems to be no established rules of etiquette among users, maybe there should be some guidelines about what people should and should not say on the Internet. Why should people be subjected to hate-filled

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.

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

Modern society has grown to be more and more friendly since the last Black Revolution. During those dark ages, society has become unacceptably unwelcoming and prejudice. The belief of white supremacy has morally corrupted our generation and has set an extremely bad example to the younger demographic. Therefore, we must tighten our belts and revise our laws in order to eradicate as much violence demonstrated to our younglings as possible as we cannot afford to have another revolution happen again.

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

For the past decade or so there has been a considerable shift in the way we communicate with each other; instead of speaking face-to-face, we prefer to stay in touch by way of a Facebook post or Tweet. Social media dominates our life whether we’re using it, or not. However, not all online dissonance has been healthy and civil. The internet has seen a rise in the number of trolls and predators that lurk the dark corners of the Internet. Threats, and heinous insults flood media networks like Reddit and Snapchat. Online predators who fling insults are enamored by the internet’s alluring anonymity and can’t give it up. Like Christine Rosen says in her article called, “In the Beginning Was the Word,” “technology has introduced new words, changed the meaning of others, and has even introduced new forms of language and communication” (230). The evolutionary trend and prevalence of people intentionally offending others online has led to a