Rhetorical Analysis Of Should Neo Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech

We should protect the freedom of speech of the Neo-Nazis because even though their speech may be hateful

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

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

After 9/11, Netanyahu argued against regarding basic liberties such free speech and the right to bear arms as absolutes. In modern western society, we have rights, such as freedom of speech, and in some countries, the right to bear arms. In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Netanyahu argues that these rights are not universal to everybody. We need to set limits as to how far these rights can take us and suspend these rights for some people, because not everybody deserves to be granted these rights. At times when we are under threat from terrorism, we need to reduce freedom of speech and the second amendment in order to protect ourselves. There are also people who do not deserve these rights at all, because they will use them in order to further the terrorists’ agenda. Freedom of speech will encourage people to convince others that terrorist acts are acceptable, and will further convince people to join terrorist organizations and participate in terrorist acts.

Perfection in many cases is unobtainable: this case is no exception. The author's rhetoric contains many facts, examples, and quotes adding complexity to his argument; however, it contains many unsubstantial arguments lacking enough information to prove some points. Overall, the author delivers a decent paper on anti-Semitism; however it contains a various amount of flaws. The author states, “Anti-Semitism is not a mysterious “disease,” and as history shows, what is often called anti-Semitism is the natural and understandable attitude of people toward a minority with particular loyalties that wield greatly disproportionate power for its own interests, rather than for the common good.” The author uses many facts backed up with evidence supporting

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

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 on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

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,

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

The author opens up the article with the quote by Jonathan Rauch that: “somehow the idea that “liberal” means “nice”. Rauch believed that this idea threatens civil liberties, liberal inquiry. Today, it is widely thought that freedom of speech is not the “right to insult a community,” and that idea raised hate crime laws. The author goes on with criticizing this idea of prohibiting “hate mongers”. He claims that criminal prosecution of hate speech rather puts more danger to Jews [oppressed] and “freedom-loving people” than to the people who perform the hatred, whom laws are targeting. Furthermore, these laws are abused and misused to harm the people they are ought to protect.

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

With freedom of speech can come violence, a common reason for nations and governments to deny this right. Some societies, such as Singapore, agree that by enforcing certain laws that abide the government keep said nation “orderly and relatively crime-free” (Reyes, par. 3). Freedom of speech can also mean

“At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.