The Freedom Of Speech : An Definition Of The Term By Public Access

The article “On Racist Speech” by Charles R. Lawrence III discusses the issue of free speech and its involvement in racism, where the boundaries are not very well established between free speech and hate speech. Lawrence introduces the conflict found on university campuses, where the First Amendment is pushed to its limits with “face-to-face insults, catcalls, or other assaultive speech.” Lawrence also discusses the use of free speech as an outlet for the grievances of minorities, writing that “Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our democratic system.”

There is a book out there that talks about a topic that you do not agree with. While you may find the book offensive, others may find it inspiring or a reflection of their life. These varying points of view are what often lead to people calling for a ban of a certain book in a school or public library. This brings to light a topic that impacts all of us in one way or another, censorship in the form of book bans. This leads to a topic that can be the center of debate for many, whether or not we should allow the censorship of books, or other forms of media, in our libraries. And by censoring books, we are referring to taking them off of the shelves. Of course, many people have strong opinions on this. Coincidentally, I also have an opinion. My opinion is that we should not censor books, while making you understand why the idea of censorship in our school and public libraries goes against the fundamental values and freedoms that we hold dearly as citizens of the United States.

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.

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

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

Many books have been challenged or censored during different places and time periods. For example, the earliest book censorship in America was done by the Puritans in the 1600s. Seven decades ago, the Nazi Regime censored and modified The Bible in order to create a version that suited their ideologies. Today, “10 percent of all books” are removed from the public view (“2016 Book”). Nearly “ninety-nine percent” of the books that are challenged are pulled, or essentially banned, from three locations that need it the most: “the public library, school, and school library” (“2016 Book”). These are the places where people obtain knowledge from and it would be a loss to libraries to have a book removed from their shelves. Right now, the two largest demographics that support censorship are “parents and patrons” (”2016 Book”). In the past, they have had an upper hand due to financial backing from patrons, people or organizations that commit to a cause. These supporters believe that censorship must exist to prevent harm towards readers. On the other

Where hate speech and the motivation for performing an act intersect, the subtleties must be addressed so that there is no confusion as to where the line is exactly drawn. The debate on hate speech and its protection due to the 1st Amendment is a sensitive subject as minute details can turn the tide on whether a criminal is guilty of an act or

Harvey A. Silvergate stated in his article, “Muzziling Free Speech”, that “Our entire Country is a free speech zone, and that our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.” Free speech, in the form of hate speech, should be not regulated on American college campuses. Should hate speech be discouraged? Of course! However, developing policies that limit hate speech runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. The University of California System’s response to banning hate speech, speech codes in universities, law cases Doe v. University of Michigan and Sigma Chi Fraternity v George Mason University, and the view points of law professor Greg Margarian, proves why we should protect hate speech, even though it may seem wrong.

Waldron also argues that the harms caused by hate speech are “constituted by speech, rather than merely caused by speech” (166). He believes that the element that damages the dignity and assurance of vulnerable minorities is the speech itself, not actions that they speech promotes or the way that it is

In order to reduce the astonishing number of hate crimes in the United States, the Federal Government should restrict hate speech, and the expressions of hateful ideas, in all its forms, in all places, both public and private. However, it is imperative that hate speech be defined first. Contrary to some opinions, it is possible to accurately define hate speech, because hate speech does not actually have many elusive forms. Hate speech includes fighting words as defined in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, and words that incite violence or aggression towards a specific group based on sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, or political orientation by the provision of information that is not valid against all members of the group. The wording

The substance and its presentation of the article is highly readable and flows easily to cover multiple topics while still giving each a fair share of dialogue. The web of topics covered is centered around that of ‘hate speech’. Questions regarding that, its relationship with the first amendment, and current events are addressed. I found that the polls and analysis of supreme court cases to be particularly insightful to the topic. The author also provided opinions and statements of opposing views to be addressed, and conceded his own position early on in the article. Doing so, the article was very capable of communicating critical details to the reader. The author’s conveyance of the subject really resonated with me personally as I believe that the idea of the first amendment goes far beyond its reach as a keystone to the constitution; it is an inalienable right.

Limits on our rights limit freedom. Colin Kaepernick, a former 49ers quarterback, took a knee during the presentation of the protested during the U.S. national anthem as a way of social protest. Kaepernick and others following his suit have silently protested racial inequality and police brutality. Protesting the national anthem is an appropriate form of free speech. Due to exercising the First Amendment, nonviolent protesting, and by being national, influential football players, refusing to stand for the national anthem is ethical.

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.