What Is Rhetoric Stemming From The Years 1980 To Present Day?

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.

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.

Author Michael Lieberman’s article, “Hate Crime Laws: Punishment to Fit the Crime”, discusses that violence is intentionally and specifically targeted at individuals because of their personal, and immutable characteristics (Lieberman 81). Based on this statement, it is obvious that when a person mumbles some racial slur under their breath, one can conclude that it is intentional and may lead to some type of confrontation. For example, an openly gay or lesbian student attending college is constantly being taunted and ridiculed because if his or her sexual orientation. Every time the student passes by a particular group of students, they yell out the words “queer” or “faggot”. Based on this example, it is evident that hate crimes do not occur by accident but that they are premeditated and well thought out in advance.

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.

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

Now take a moment to consider how many people in America would openly declare dislike for freedom of speech. Not many, if not none. Of course freedom of speech is something to be fond of since it enables us with the ability to say whatever we want and having our own opinions without worrying about it. However, everything has limits, and we haven't set limits for this idea, which leads to confusion and controversy. The idea of freedom of speech is often stretched and distorted beyond to be used as an excuse, for example in hurled racial slurs. No matter how racist or hurtful a comment, who ever declared the said

However, these ideas cannot be simply dismissed because they are central to the American perspective on the necessity of hate speech legislation. Waldron fails to address in an effective way why he is able to dismiss these central ideas. In doing so, he is practically admitting to the reader that his ideas are based outside of the framework of the reality of American free speech tradition. The strength of his argument suffers from the fact that his argument is not applicable to the reality of American society’s views on free speech.

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 today 's society, politics has become the uproar of many citizens ' daily lives. Many would ask how has hate become such an issue in the United States. Moreover, how does hate and politics are similar to each other. The article “Vandalized by Speech” states “America 's future depends on how well we learn to manage our diversity. Yet when it comes to hate speech, we pretty much adhere to the advice we give elementary school students to defend themselves against bullies”. However, the author Gregory Rodriguez informs how giving a speech can over turn onto a hate approach. Mr. Rodriguez also quotes Jeremy Waldron a New York University political philosopher that “racist rhetoric is a slow-acting poison”. Additionally this causes those who have a positive outlook on society to become difficult to be good hearted people (Jeremy Waldron). Negative views on certain situations such as judging one of its nationality of being criminals depresses the political participation of citizens. Such cases can trigger signs of those who may have a disorder.

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

This article also shows that letting hate speech spread freely will only hurt and torment the victims emotionally, as the aggressors will keep

Out of all the thing the United States guarantees the first amendment is the one Americans put the highest enforce on. For this reason it is quite tricky to put regulations on the Internet pertaining to anything even if the thing in question is harmful to another human being. The United States Supreme Court has tried to make expectations to the freedom of speech rule but with no avail. This concludes that getting the United States government to create a law to regulate hate speech on the Internet is slightly out of the question

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

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.