Rae Langton's Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?

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

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

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.

<br>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

Now any one can take a jab at what they think a hate crime is but in the article Understanding Hate Crime Statutes and Building Towards a Better System in Texas the author supports us with his definition of a what is a hate crime “a hate crime, at its basic level is an ‘attack upon the person or property of an individual motivated by hatred of a characteristic of that person, such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity’” (Gillis 199). Now that the definition gives us clarity on what exactly labeled onto what exactly is considered a hate crime. For example, did you know that if someone vandalizes a synagogue and they write something offensive to the Followers of that particular religion that will be considered a hate crime because of the person is “motivated by hatred” towards the Followers (Gillis 199). You may have your own perspective on a particular group but if you so happen to put your hands on the person to harm them because of your belief it becomes a hate crime. In its basic form of what is a hate crime Gillis uses the definition so that the reader aware hate crime criteria. Let us take another article for example, In opening of Jesse Larner’s article Hate Crime/Thought Crime he alluded to a situation where two Caucasian men decided to go and attack two African-American with the intent to do some serious harm to them. There were no knowledge as to what was motivated them to do so. One thing for sure according to Larner, Sean Riley Caught up to one of the victims and remorselessly told her “I’m going to kill you, you black bitch”. Without a doubt it is extremely obvious that hatred of a specific race was the driving force behind the gruesome actions posed by the two “men” especially Mr. Sean Riley. There’s no way that the 1st amendment of the United States correlate with the criminal acts that

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.

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

The hate crime legislations in the United States need to clearly define and identify hate crimes. Title 18 of the United States Code allows prosecutors to prosecute anyone who intentionally injures, intimidate, interferes with someone else, or attempts to do so, by force because of a person’s race, color, religions, or

The first dimension of speech that West identifies is perhaps also the most basic part of what is comprehended in the term ‘free speech’: the production and distribution of words. West suggests several ways in which the free distribution of racist hate speech can deprive its targets of the ability to do the same. There is the threat implicit in racist hate speech due to the history of racially motivated violence, the physiological ‘speechlessness’ that can take hold in the aftermath of a fear response such as a hate speech may provoke, and the damage to self-esteem which may prevent the targets of racial hate speech from feeling themselves to have any

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,

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

Although the bias was apparent through his speech, it was made provable through the young men’s actions in which he inclined. But this is where hate crime statues become tricky, and face most opposition. Those against hate crime statutes argue just that, of one’s rights being violated if a penalty-enhancement is enforced.

What is a hate speech for one may be an empowering speech for another. Many believe these speeches contribute to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs that allow for several different aspects of a situation to be analyzed. Others believe these words will start violent actions against those hated upon. However, old adages about sticks and stones exist for a reason: they are true. No matter the individual, people are capable of ignoring the hate if they so wish. Sometimes, many make claims so outrageous that not even the most zealous of advocates would argue them, bold statements such as saying all Middle Easterners should be tortured because they are all terrorists. It is not worth anyone’s time to argue against these, and creating a political issue surrounding that claim makes one appear foolish. However, several hate speeches are beneficial to the

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

While some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but we should not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others.