Online Hate Speech Should Be Regulated By Eissens

In the debate over the censoring of hate speech, the opponents conclude that hate speech should be censored for peoples ' dignity. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that hate speeches should not be censored on college campuses because it takes away students academic freedom. In this essay, I will conclude that we should not censor hate speech on college campuses. The debate between protection of offensive expression and protection of dignity has been an ongoing issue.

Hate speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

In the past couple of decades till now, there have been countless numbers of hate speech cases on college campuses across the country. Due to hate speech taking on many forms such as written, spoken, and symbolic, the number of incidents have skyrocketed. While many colleges have attempted to regulate hate speech on campus, other colleges have found that they have limited too much speech and that their regulations are starting to go against the first amendment. Three incidents of hate speech on college campuses in the years 1993-1995 occurred in the college campuses of Penn, UCR, and Caltech respectively.

In the articles “Should the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?” by Brooke Ross, and “Editorial in The New York Times: January 1, 1948”, both contain many important similarities and differences. In the first article “Should the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?”, it explains mostly about The First Amendment . For example, in the article it states, “ The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for change.” This shows that the First Amendment gives you the right to protest peacefully for a change in the government. Another example that the article states is, “The First Amendment protects most hate speech.” This is another example that shows how The First Amendment protects most hate speech,

Therefore, these crimes are prevalent in the society because no community or society is immune to the impacts of intolerance and prejudice. Moreover, hate crimes contain seeds of probable conflicts that require concerted efforts to deal with. Resolving hate crimes requires various initiatives from different stakeholders in the community in order to thwart the potential cycle of violence. Some of the major stakeholders who can deal with hate crimes include legislators, police and prosecutors, local authorities, and non-governmental organizations. However, dealing with this societal issue not only requires proving that an act is an offense but also demonstrating that it was committed with a bias motivation.

Many pro-speech advocates argue that policies restricting hate speech are always overbroad which leads to a chilling effect in which people are afraid to say anything controversial in fear of punishment and thus, ideas are suppressed in the process. Nevertheless, in the case of hate speech, rights of students to a proper education, uninterrupted by intentional expressions of hate should easily surpass students and professors’ rights to complete free speech. Hate speech on campus causes psychological harm and emotional distress to those that it is directed towards and is a form of discrimination that strips its target of their dignity. Vulnerable minorities subjected to hate speech feel unwelcome, which disrupts their education and opportunities. Additionally, hate speech silences its victims rendering them powerless in comparison to the strength of the majority. This effect is in direct opposition of the ultimate goal of free speech. The objective of free speech is to have controversial speech answered with more speech by the opposing side; however, hate speech eliminates the opposing side from engaging in the countering speech response, thus the exchanging of ideas is disrupted. Furthermore, the dangers of hate speech are apparent when looking at countries comparable to the United States, such as Germany, England, and Canada, all of which have laws in place that make hate speech a punishable crime. If almost all other democratic countries fear the consequences of hate speech enough to compose laws proscribing it, then this type of harm should not be allowed on campuses which encompass young and vulnerable individuals. Overall, hate speech undermines the peace on campus, interferes with the educational environment of minorities, and is contradictory to the mission of free speech in that more speech is

The First Amendment does not only give the individuals the rights to free speech, but also gives the companies the protection to advertise their products. However, there are regulations in advertisements, such as that the information on the advertisements cannot be misguiding nor false. If companies are restricted on the way they use to advertise, individuals may not be as free as they think because they are regulated on what they want to say. For instance, tobacco companies are highly regulated in advertisements. The government required tobacco companies to inform the consumers that tobacco can cause bad health problems. This can support the argument that we are not as we as we believe we are because we need to follow the directions of the government. The government limited the people that tobacco companies can target. However, tobacco companies are indirectly targeting the youth because the style of their advertisements are most attractive to teenagers. This is an issue that is cause by the First Amendment because sellers have the rights of free speech. They may be limited to the ways they advertise, but they always find ways to sell their products to a wider group.

In the first amendment of the United States constitution, American citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech. This is a fundamental right of American law, and one of the foundations of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the breeding ground for one of the most widely debated issues in America: What, if any, measures should be put into place to regulate hateful language? Most people will agree under one definition or another that hate speech is a socially deviant activity and worthy of some form of punishment. However, each person's definition of hate speech is different from the next. Some might say that there is no such thing as hate speech, and that because of the first amendment any and all speech should be

The argumentative paper “How can we ban insults against Jews, but not Muslims” by William Saletan discusses his opinion upon how insults have been selectively banned on within countries. Saletan is a writer from the online magazine Slate and he primarily writes about science, technology, and politics. Saletan discussed how multiple bans restricting the use of slurs and derogatory words about Jewish people exist around the world. His criticism is about how these bans are unique to those of the Jewish faith and do not include another heavily criticized religious group the Muslim people of the world. In this appeal to the average educated America adult, he stressed the idea of favoring free speech over potentially “silencing minorities” (Saletan 96). He

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

Of all the rights guaranteed to us under the United States Constitution, none is more cherished than freedom of speech--and perhaps none is more controversial. (Sudo 17) The grey zone that is hate speech and other viewpoint-based opinions play a large role in the controversy. Freedom of speech grants U.S. citizens free expression to voice their criticisms without fear of being arrested. However, hate speech restrictions are purely abstract and ultimately flawed which makes restricting it difficult. Censoring viewpoint-based speech restriction infringes on the rights given by freedom of speech, is subjective and hard to define, and may lead to future issues with freedom of speech.

The writer of this article, Ronald Eissens is the Secretariat for the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH) and this article discusses the problem of hate speech. I am going to use this article in the first body paragraph and. Some other body paragraphs as well. I use this article as a source because of three reasons. First – in the authors' view in this article Eissens explain strongly about hate speech and its consequences with evidence. Second – Eissen supports the topic by strong and truthful cases that the prohibition of hate speech is not contradictory to free speech. Third - Eissen explains well what is the best protection against hate speech. Generally, I found this document use full as the source for my next essay and to argue about the topic.

The Internet has made it is so easy for people to share there opinion on most every topic. This can be good at times but also can be extremely hurtful towards people especially if the goal in saying the hurtful words was to get a reaction. Hate Speech is an expression that is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing, and/or incites violence, hatred or discrimination. People are typically targeted because of the way they identify themselves ethnicity, religion, race, or national origin. In the case with hate speech in the United States many people do not want to put a regulation of what is said on the Internet because of the first Amendment that allows people the freedom of speech. There are other ways in which the United States can regulate the hate speech put on the Internet.

“GOD HATES FAGS” is the kind of hate speech used by the members of Westboro Baptist Church to grab headlines and national attention. The public backlash against them has been almost universal. The public opinion that it is reprehensible and unnecessarily hurtful is at the center of the debate on whether or not some hate speech should be made illegal. An interesting side effect is it can have a polarizing effect for good. It can bring people together to stand up against the person or group speaking out of hatred. This type of rhetoric has taken many forms and had many sources over the years. Other examples include public anger towards Muslims after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, much of the debate about the Civil Rights movement in the ‘60s, and even comments by current presidential candidates all can be considered hate speech. As much as this type of hurtful language is instantly and historically detested it is still protected by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. A recent case against Westboro Baptist church went all the way to the Supreme Court and their freedom to say these morally reprehensible things was upheld (Richey, 2011). Hate speech is something that should be protected by the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

Hatred is blind inveterate anger. There is no intrinsic value in hate speech since it does not lead to the development of society. Victims of hate speech are silenced daily, “intimidated and subject to severe psychological and physical trauma by racist assailants who employ words and symbols as part of oppression and subordination.” The intent of hate speech is never to continue a conversation but to end it. Hate speech is neither mere offense of the other, nor the expression of dissatisfaction with people. Offending one another is the price of free society, but that is not what is in question. According to Mari Matsuda, hate speech is a racist speech that has to with “perpetuation of violence and degradation” of minorities. It is unjustifiable freedom that curbs others liberty by stifling their views. It relies on false facts, ignorance and bigoted ideas. As Matsuda contends, even though hate speech does not curtail all speech, it does “inhibits some expression.” Outside the context of hate speech, we can acknowledge that words are powerful: they have the ability to create both positive and negative psychological effects. For instance, compliments can build confidence, and repeated critiques can break one’s belief in oneself. In the case of hate, speech words can degrade an individual, incite fear and lead to violence. They can traumatize some from