Pros And Cons Of Words And Images In The United States

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

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.

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” There has been a controversial issue regarding hate speech and the laws that prohibit it. The right to freedom of expression reassures each person the right to express themselves in ideas and opinions without the government's interference. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment and should not be expressed towards others because it causes harm. In this essay I will talk about the effects harmful hate speech caused to others and to the groups treated as insignificant. I will also discuss how hate speech cannot

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

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

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,

In the case of Elonis v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Elonis’s speech did not count as a “true threat” since a subjective intent to threaten was needed. An objective standard would not be sufficient in this case because we want to separate actual criminal acts from heat of the moment mistakes. However, the decision of the Supreme Court does not include intended victims of the threats and they need to be taken into account as well. The government’s duty to protect the right to first amendment’s freedom of speech and its duty to keep people safe can collide from time to time. Therefore, we may have to take all threats seriously and not just the ones the speaker intends, in order to protect everyone from potential violence and prevent preemptive strikes out of fear.

The Freedom of speech is very expansive filled with loop holes and with this comes many cases that have change the American history. The rights of free speech, free express for all such as gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability has help to encourage society development and helps to encourage equality for everyone. It is always bad intention to use the right of to fuel hate, prejudice and other crimes of violence. For example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case that challenged the speech of individual speech that was exhibit imminent lawless action or used words to incite or direct an action.

This speech grew to action, which led Nazi leaders to implement the “Final Solution,” and the massacre of six million Jews.  But what about hate crimes today in the United States, how are hate-based murders different from a murder of a random individual.  The answer to that question is in the brutality of the crime.  Hate crimes are, for the most part, inherently more brutal because of deeply rooted ideals between two opposing groups.  This brutality has led many, including former president Bill Clinton to call for legislation against hate crimes (Hellwege).

At one point, Mackinnon wonders what warrants the restriction of freedom of speech in the US. One judge once wrote, “fear of serious injury cannot alone justify the suppression of free speech”. She points out that it is this exact fear – a fear of serious injury – which justifies the government’s prohibition on child pornography.[8] She continues that it is the plight of the abused, which is frequently trivialized in the United States. Those who are assaulted are told to “accept the freedom of your abusers” and that “you are not really being hurt”.[9] But one of the most important differences

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