Should Hate Groups Be Allowed Free Speech?

Westboro Baptist Church is a Church full of many people who protest at many military funerals. There are many people like the people in Westboro Baptist Church, those are the type of people who hate America. In the year 2013, Westboro Baptist Church was counter-protested at a military funeral. People who hate America and the people who fought for them, should be removed from this country. Westboro Baptist Church is one of the many people who protest at military funerals, there are many more who hate America even though we send people out to fight for them, if those people think that America is not worth their love, then they should be removed and sent to the nearest country, People should be able to understand, that America is a country that fights for everyone’s freedom, and their rights.

The Westboro Baptist Church has long been regarded in the media as a group filled with hate and detestation for virtually anyone who does not practice their teachings. In reality, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church hold a strong belief that the messages that are portrayed through their picketing and social media websites are actually acts of love that reveal the severity of the actions that most humans partake in. Most of the members were born into the Church and therefore believe that the words they proclaim are the absolute truth. Although most Americans do not agree with the teachings and practices that the Westboro Baptist Church preaches, it is important to learn about and try to understand the various aspects of the church in

Hate groups ruin the childhoods of many and ruin the lives of others with their ideas. We need to provide a better program for kids having family problems. Along with that, there should be more security in religious places like temples. Hate groups are

Though all protests may not result in violent activities, they are still able to leave a detrimental effect on society, as protests may violate people’s rights, especially the right to privacy. A specific example of one’s right to privacy being violated by protests is the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals (Anti- Defamation League 2013). Although these protests are peaceful a majority of the time, they disrupt military funerals and infringe on the grieving family’s right to privacy. More specifically, those who are mourning the loss of a loved one expect to do this in private, not with protesters rioting in the background, disrupting the secluded funeral. Eventually, limitations were placed on these unconstitutional protests stating that protesters must be a certain distance from the funeral and can only protest two hours before and after the funeral (The Huffington Post 2016) . Though some may believe both the right to petition and assemble should be unlimited, this case demonstrates that these rights must be restricted in order to protect the contradiction of others’ right to

With most churches believing in peace and other freedoms, the Westboro Baptist Church believes in an alternate form of God, a being that is malevolent and vindictive. From this, the church pickets and protests against many modern day events, such as the gay-rights movement and overseas war funerals, in which the church responds with hateful signs such as “America is Doomed, Fags Have no Rights, God Blew Up the Troops”, and other anti-American slogans. Because of these protests, the Church is regarded internationally as being a cult, which preaches hate. Unfortunately, the First Amendment, which allows them to, protects their speech, no matter how unpopular it is. As long as the Church follows all police and protesting laws, and as long as the speech does not fall under: defamation, true threats, incitement to lawless action, or obscenity, then the Church can protest what they wish, without prosecution of the

However, they shouldn’t be. If no one is putting a stop to these groups, then what is stopping them from causing violence. Although it may not be intentional, if a hate group has a rally it is more likely that it will result in violence. They are a hate group after

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

<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

The Klu Klux Klan, one of the most recognised hate groups in US history, was founded in 1865. They were under the impression that people of color were less valuable than white people, some even believing that they weren't human. Something people don’t realize is that groups like that are still around today, and just as active as ever. Hate groups, and just random unorganised hate crimes are just as real as me and you, and they are still an active threat. Hate Crime is relevant, and as a society, we should be doing our best to snuff out the flames of prejudice and resentment that burn in the hearts of anyone willing to participate in such unjust behavior. This kind of activity is not only hurtful emotionally, but sometimes, it turns to violence. Innocent people getting picked off the street simply because of their beliefs, who they love, or the color of their skin. This is something that nobody should stand for, especially now, in this constantly progressing world. All in all, Hate Crimes are a real problem, and in order to stop injustice such as this, we need to work together as human beings to accept people, regardless of who they are.

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While a clear and concise definition remains forthcoming, it is easier to establish what hate speech is not. Hate speech is wrong but legal in the United States of America mostly because we have the freedom of speech. But the First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. In this case, people are allowed to use hate speech and not get arrested or any legal actions against them. The best way to counter obnoxious speech such as this is with more speech. Persuasion, not violence, is the solution to this problem (Jouhari).

Over the course of American history, many have taken the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and created wonderful things out of it. Alice Paul is an excellent example: she utilized her right to free speech and press to promote the equality of women and earned them the right to vote, in the midst of World War I. However, many take it the other way and create hate speeches where they tear down one particular group or individual or idea with their crude and blunt remarks. Yet, they are protected by the freedom of speech and the government cannot interfere with their actions, causing many to argue the First Amendment Right cannot be extended to anyone making hurtful remarks. Hate speeches need to be protected by the freedom of speech, as shown in legal documentation, moral issues, and the benefits it creates.

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,

Just a couple of months ago white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville to protest the tearing down of the statue of Robert E Lee. The racism and hate they spread through their march is unquestionably disgusting and serves no purpose in our society today. This event has led to social media sites such as Twitter to crack down even harder in a plight they started over a year ago to silence hateful speech. While there are some occasional dissenters, the general population agrees with the opinion that this speech is awful in every sense. With that being said, censoring their right to free speech is a bit too rash. We can all agree that free speech is one of the most important rights we have, and with President Trump throwing around the term “fake news” at major news organizations, it is more important than ever to protect that freedom. The article “The case for restricting hate speech” by Laura Beth Nielsen of the Los Angeles Times gives an argument for why hate speech should be censored. While she provides valid points, with the absence of factual statistics, none of them are strong enough to support her thesis that hate speech should be banned. I believe that in almost every instance, hate speech should remain protected just as much as our right to free speech.

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.