The Freedom Of Speech : Hate Speech

Freedom of speech is defined by the first amendment as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of

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

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,

Freedom of speech, the most quoted right of the United States Constitution but, what does this freedom really mean? People have struggled over this issue time and time again, arguing a whole array of things from total censorship to none at all. According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (First Amendment). Many argue that this gives U.S. citizens the right to say whatever they want, without exception. However, many disagree with this statement (maybe elaborate on this sentence). According to the Supreme Court there are a few exceptions to this freedom. Slander, defamation, fighting words and obscenity are all not protected under the First Amendment. The main issue derived from this is whether or not the government should be able to censor hate speech or if that is a violation of the Constitution. One one hand, it is argued that it should be allowed in order to protect minorities and individuals from being slandered and targeted. On the other hand, it is said that the government should not have that authority, as such laws will undoubtedly lead to censorship in a way that truly does limit free speech. These issues have been discussed and argued over for years, with the focus always returning to the text of the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides valuable guidance to the country and is viable on determining laws and court cases concerning the issue of hate speech in present day America. Although, it has proven

Of all the rights guaranteed to us under the United States Constitution, none is more cherished than freedom of speech--and perhaps none is more controversial. (Sudo 17) The grey zone that is hate speech and other viewpoint-based opinions play a large role in the controversy. Freedom of speech grants U.S. citizens free expression to voice their criticisms without fear of being arrested. However, hate speech restrictions are purely abstract and ultimately flawed which makes restricting it difficult. Censoring viewpoint-based speech restriction infringes on the rights given by freedom of speech, is subjective and hard to define, and may lead to future issues with freedom of speech.

Free speech versus hate speech is a very widespread debate as there are convincing arguments on both sides that are very compelling. Although there are many points commonly used to back up the argument that are false and inaccurate. All Americans have a right to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly as depicted in the first amendment, but the exceptions to freedom of speech have never directly been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The first Amendments and its protections of speech, religion, press, and assembly are considered almost sacred rights by the American people, but in light of recent events such as the rise in prominence of the alt-right movement and white nationalist protests occurring on college campuses, we must review how certain rights and privileges granted by our constitution are misused by groups that perpetuate hate, violence, and fear. In this paper, I would like to argue that hate speech, and other forms of speech that injure shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause because it has the power to incite people to violence and cause harm to marginalized groups.

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.

Principle 5 is something we can all applaud. But as Timothy Garton Ash’s commentary indicates, it raises further issues that are not conveyed in the formulation of the principle itself. Should “speaking openly” mean speaking without any legal constraint, even when the speech is manifestly uncivil? So the discussion raises the issue of hate speech and the difficult question about whether it is ever appropriate to legislate against it.

Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that human deserves it in every country. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Hate is speech attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. People shouldn’t limit their views, but they should limit how to express it and disagree each other with respect. No one chose his/her own race, ethnic origin, disability, or gender when they born. Human just born as they are, so, everyone deserves to be respected not to be hated just the way they are. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives.

Long ago, the Freedom of Speech has been bestowed upon us as a natural human right. This natural human right is guaranteed to the citizens of the United States under the U.S. Constitution. In the Bill of Rights, Amendment I, it states that “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.”[1] Freedom of speech, in the past, pertained mostly to written, spoken or televised media. However, in recent years, with the Internet explosion, freedom of speech has reached a new frontier. In the United States, citizens are

A girl sitting in the back stared at me as I walked into senior English class, as if to say, “What is he doing here?” Yet, this class is open for everyone, including international students. She might have stereotype about me as the quietest student sitting in the corner and never talked in the other class. To be honest, sometimes the offensive glimpse can be much harsher than the actual hate speech. This kind of racism expression is carved into my high school memory; however, any racist expression as a form of free speech is not strictly limited by the First Amendment. Hate speeches have degraded the value of free speech which cause a serious attention from public. So should free speech, especially on campus, be regulated by certain ways or should keep them totally “free?” Recently, David Greenald, the founder of the Davis Vanguard as well as a free speech purist, claimed that Milo Yiannopoulos, an extreme radical speaker, should be allowed to lecture at UC Davis. Yes, the issue of whether free speech has threatened our society has been doing the rounds with deafening debates. While Greenwald is probably right that we need a free-speech environment, I think he neglects the need for some boundaries of speech and gives a wrong way to deal with these radical speeches. Admittedly, liberal speech benefits students for exchanging ideas and discussing pros and cons, which involve great academic thinking. In the contrast, when schools, the sanctuaries for education, introduce

In a recent survey conducted by UCLA professor John Villasenor, 660 out of the 1,500 college students surveyed about hate speech insisted that hate speech was not protected under the Constitution. Additionally, 240 students, from the same study, were unsure if hate speech was protected or not. (Timpf) This study reveals how misinformed people are on hate speech and how censorship is becoming more acceptable in American ideologies. Americans are seeing words that they disagree with as acts of verbal violence rather than learning to accept differing opinions and beliefs. Instead of being proactive and using the Constitution as a source to fight back people would rather choose to change it even if it means taking away core values of the First Amendment. Although the Constitution covers speech that is deemed hateful, legislation should not change the law to restrict people from saying hateful words; instead, individuals affected by these obscene words should utilize the First Amendment to counteract the words with a positive message instead of trying to silence those with opposing beliefs and viewpoints.

Free Speech is the privilege available to all but is also criticized if the speaker chooses to demonize a subject. This issue has left the government and public in, the ambiguity of what sanctions Free Speech Laws will able to act in without causing any illegal activity. Being frequently brought into question when there is an incision of negative response, or instilled hatred upon a specific ethnicity when spoken to an audience. If this is not kept under the legislative and the public eye, individuals will be able to go around tarnishing any other group of people with no repercussions, but if the usage of free speech has some sort of prerequisite to how it should be used there could possibly be some alleviation of hate and resentment an ethnicity has been dealt. Three of the articles I selected for this research have written distinct opinions on how free speech should be handled before it goes under criticism for possibly demeaning a community of people. Gelber and Luke the writers of “The Effects of Civil Hate Speech Laws “ideally believe in that hate speech laws ought to have more productive outcomes on the public discussion by encouraging more respectful speech. Waldron the author of “The Harm of Hate Speech” sees the public and legislative tending to misunderstand the harm hate speech and the major impacts it causes to its victims. Fiss the writer of “The Irony of Free Speech” introduces the idea that free speech can be regulated not to interact with the “general

The First Amendment has become a hot topic for the United States because of recent protest demonstrations and questioning verbal and non-verbal complaints. College is a time for students to find their identity. The act of the student personally developing can be foreign depending on their upbringing. The higher education institution must be willing to support students through the transitional stage, while giving the needed legal guidance. An institution offering legal guidance can eliminate problems regarding free speech issues, whether it be through campus protest, publications in the campus newspaper, hate speech on social media, or speech in an academic setting. The content of the following paper will look at the definition of hate speech, protection hate speech receives from the First Amendment, and a few cases that battled hate speech on college campuses.