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.
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
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 First Amendment, freedom of speech, has proven to have made a tremendous impact on our history and the course we have taken. Our country has been transformed throughout history to appreciate the different cultures, religions, and traditions; from a simple act as speaking up to what we think is right we have seen our nation grow and prosper. As citizens, we are entitled to express our opinions and this right must be respected. However, we have taken advantage of this amendment. Nowadays, freedom of speech has become more destructive than supportive. Freedom of speech means giving everyone a chance to speak up; this does not give us the right to harm other individuals.
Hate speech is rhetoric which attacks an individual or group on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The impact has taken a social and psychological
The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.
In order to resolve the issues of hate speech, one should address the necessary balance between personal liberties and public safety. However, some restrictions must be placed on hate speech, including the expression of hateful ideas. It is imperative that hate speech is limited in some cases, such as those where it could pose a serious threat to the surrounding environment. The only way hate speech can be controlled is with strict guidelines and probable hate speech situations left up to a case-by-case basis.
As a constitutional right, people often exercise their right to freedom of speech believing that they also have the right to voice their opinions which can be provocative to opposing parties no matter where they stand. There is a defining line between what can be constituted as hate speech and free speech. Depending on the way that it is expressed, voicing an opinion can easily be misinterpreted causing certain people to feel threatened or attacked, then leading to dangerous physical outbursts. The right to exercise one’s own opinion that can challenge or provoke others should be deterred or at least limited if safety of all parties, even those not directly involved, cannot be guaranteed.
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.
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.
Freedom of speech is the right that grants everyone and anyone to speak their opinions and ideas aloud without fear of censorship. As someone who believes that every opinion should be considered, I believe that sharing viewpoints allow students in college and everywhere else to freely express themselves and allows people to be who they are. Just like teachers from high schools and professors from colleges preach, students should be allowed to speak their minds without being scared of facing major consequences. Even though someone may disagree on someone’s point of view, it is the idea of proposing new ideas in order to obtain new knowledge about certain topics. Another important concept about assessments is they allow for debates to take place, which open people's minds to new ideas or help them understand different ideas. The sharing of ideas allow students to develop new ways of thinking about certain situations and it is essential for students to have their beliefs challenged by their peers, so they can develop knowledge on a certain topic, however, censorship does not allow students to be as open minded but the exact opposite.
Democracy is one of the most significant contributions of the ancient Greeks, and it became one of the central sources for the development of Western civilization. The ancient Greeks were pioneers of free speech. Their theater, literature, and educational institutions explored the human experience, freedom of expression, and questioning of authority. Freedom of speech is the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty, cornerstone of democracy. Throughout history freedom of speech has been the most feared threat to those in political, religious and administrative power positions. Consequently, freedom of speech is a powerful resource in order to approach truth and change, but now taken for granted, is misused. Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to do things that are harmful to society. Limitations are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of others such as false speech that harms reputation, threatening speech and speech intended to cause criminal activity.
COMMUNICATION IS a fundamental human requirement and is the underpinning of all human dealings since it is the mode through which humans exchange information. The free exchange of ideas and knowledge take place when there is unrestricted full-fledged communication. It is guaranteed through the “freedom of speech and expression”, the most cherished fundamental right, as envisaged under various international covenants and most of the constitutions including the Indian Constitution. The right to freedom of expression has a wide ambit which includes the freedom to hold opinions, freedom to impart information, the freedom to receive information and even the freedom to dissent against the democratically elected governments of the day. It is also related to free thinking, imagination and deliberation which are prerequisites for a human being’s self-realisation. Moreover, it is a vital right to form a good democratic government where citizens are well informed about political happenings.