Rhetorical Analysis Of Hate Speech Laws

The thesis presented by Charles Lawrence is most likely to be “Free speech is necessary for democracy but must also be used with tolerance,” because he constantly explains the benefits

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.

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 countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

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 light of the recent events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist rally turned violent, the argument on whether or not hate speech should be banned has become increasingly more relevant. Those supporting the ban argue that this kind of speech eventually creates a society that doesn’t accept the affected minorities as equals, and can shame them into silence. On the other side, people argue this would infringe upon free speech rights. In Glenn Greenwald’s article, “In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Being used to Silence Left Wing Beliefs,” he addresses how this ban might affect left-wing activism, and the fallacies in the arguments supporting the ban. Greenwald mainly relies on logos to back up his thesis; that a hate speech ban would not work in America. The problem he faces with this as his argument is that it makes the assumption that these same issues would arise in America. Other than a brief mention of his time as a lawyer to back up one talking point, there is very little ethos. While his tone throughout the article feels very neutral and informative, he makes poor use of logos and ethos, leading to an ineffective argument.

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

In the article she mentions a KKK/NeoNazi ralley in Charlottesville. In the 6th paragraph she says “...the likes of former KKK Grand Dragon David Duke walked the streets of Charlottesville with other white men, talking about “taking their country back”.” This quote can infer that this is a bad thing, and it’s not right. Later on in her article she says “It’s time to do our work. It starts just like an AA program: The first step is admitting we have a problem. I feel that her use of logos was important because she uses the term KKK referring back to when they were racist along time ago, and how bad they were to other races. It supports her argument because she wants to show what's happening and what's wrong with

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

The author of the article discusses the hatred that revolves around the concept of equality in America. The author of the news article uses his knowledge of past events, such as slavery, and current issues. The audience of the article is those who don’t understand why the protests and riots in Charlottesville is an issue to many White Nationalist. The articles compare in the sense that they both discuss hatred that has been revolving on the issue, but they differ on what they speak of, as this article speaking of the president and his issues and the other speaks of the people. In conclusion, after many years of fighting against the hatred in society, there is still a lot to be done.

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.

One solution to combat the use of hate speech without denying First Amendment rights is to engage in dialogue in order to understand where the attitude is coming from and educate about the fallacies of one's prejudices. Politicians should be called out on their prejudice speech and members of the GOP should not condone or support such

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