Light Of The Attacks On The Charlie Hebdo Headquarters

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

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.

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,

America’s history is filled with constant arguing, debating, and bickering. Because America is so diverse and full of people with differing opinions, it is important that everyone is given a voice. The Bill of Rights is opened with the 1st amendment, which consists of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. These are the cornerstones of American society, and the freedom to assemble has guided America to where it is today. This promise was a direct response to many events in colonial America, has been defended in court as shown is the case of the Village of Skokie vs. the National Socialist Party, and was pushed to its limit at the White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville, yet the persistence of this right proves how controversy succumbs to the freedom of expression.

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

In the United States we enjoy many freedoms. There are many place throughout the world that don’t allow you to live your life with the flexibilities that a United States citizen may possess. These right are given by the Unites States constitution has made this country become pioneers of innovation, and cultural development. Having a right to express yourself and your ideals have made this the home of immigrates with the ambition to develop into major contributors in modern society. One freedom we enjoy, I would like to discuss in this paper is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one the world’s most sort after rights but as of lately it has been under attack stating it may cause national security issues. In this paper we will look at the development of the First Amendment and how newly enacted laws that will cause the government to label people or groups enacting this rights as extremist.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two principles key to the core of the American society. The Bill of Rights is a piece of literature that Americans pride themselves on, however it can sometimes raise more questions than answers. The recent protesters in Charlottesville exercised their unalienable rights, but approached an all too familiar line with these rights. A question that is commonly asked is “Where should the line be drawn regarding free speech?” Freedom of assembly is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights, where it is stated that people have the right to peacefully assemble. When discussing freedom of speech however, there is a much larger gray area. Whether freedom of speech protects everything a person says, or up until a point when it restricts the rights of another, has incited many debates. The protests in Charlottesville only worked to revive the debate surrounding this hot topic. In Politics, Aristotle discusses the meaning of speech within the human. Aristotle examines how speech is used by humans to make up for deficiencies in their instinct, as well as how we can effectively use our speech to best suit our community. How would Aristotle describe the speech used by those involved in the Charlottesville protests?

The devastating attacks on French’s popular weekly newspaper “Charlie Hebdo” sparked outrage among the French community and even many others all over the world. Indeed, right after the deadly shootings, Charlie Hebdo received an outpouring of support as French civilians were gathering in the Parisian streets in honor of the highly controversial, but loved newspaper. Social media erupted as the hash tag “Je Suis Charlie” took over the Internet. The hash tag went number one on twitter and was seen all over various social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram. Most of these messages of support included condolences to all of the victim's families but mostly the right of freedom of speech. Indeed, all those who defended Charlie Hebdo we’re

The result of this conflict calls into question whether or not hate speech is free speech, and if the government is legitimate in its restriction and prevention of such. According to Simpson, the first step is being able to “distinguish between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ harms that may be attributed to hate speech” (706). In doing so, it can be proven if the hate was intentional and therefore justify the actions of limiting hate speech. If the harm implied was direct, it may result in a loss of dignity and be physically and mentally degrading.

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.

A little over a year after the Charlie Hebdo massacres, in which twelve people were killed, one question that remains a recurrent challenge for democratic societies is at what point is freedom of speech no longer tolerable? (Fassin, 2015). In his web publication, The New Yorker vs. Free Speech, James Kirchick comments on the controversial statements made by the Nigerian-American author Teju Cole, on the website of the New Yorker. Cole argues that:

On the 28th of September, 2011, a controversial case was resolved at Federal Court concerning two provocative articles by the Herald Sun newspaper columnist, Andrew Bolts. He lost on the grounds of racial vilification according to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Upon hearing the court’s decision, Andrew Bolts said “This is a terrible day for free speech in this country.” raising an interesting question, “Should Anti-Discrimination laws be able to restrict the freedom of expression if it can cause offense?” To answer this question, we will examine the extent to which offense is permissible on the basis of “freedom of expression” and when it crosses the boundaries and starts to cost another individual their reputation and liberty.

There has been a recent rise in fervor to carve out sections of the first amendment to exclude the use of hate speech on college campuses. These limitations on free speech strike at the heart of law and justice within our society. To tolerate these restrictions sets dangerous precedents and unveils dangerous consequences. Speech codes that limit speech and expression beyond the limits of the first amendment are not justified because they harm society and the intellectual integrity of a university while failing to adequately support those students victimized by hate speech.

When the first amendment is brought up, one of the first things that comes to mind is free speech. Even though we don’t give it much thought, our free speech does have limits. The more obvious limits—such as knowing that you can’t threaten people or shout “Fire!” in a crowded space—make sense because it’s easy to see how they cause direct harm. These general limits are important in order to ensure a safe and peaceful society, but when it comes to voicing prejudice views, it becomes difficult to determine what should and should not be restricted by the first amendment. After all, when negative and hurtful opinions are directed at a specific group of people, it becomes hard to see how protecting them could be a good thing. The important thing to remember is that when sharing these views becomes harmful and leads to harassment, it is no longer protected under the first amendment. However, everyone sees things differently, so drawing the line between what is “just offensive” and harassment needs to be determined and treated on a case-by-case basis. This will not only allow us to come to a solution for these individual problems, but it leaves room for discussion which will help to combat the root cause of prejudice.