The Harm In Hate Speech Analysis

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

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

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

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,

Opposition to all forms of hate speech laws are quite passionate. People who are adamant against hate speech laws affirm their beliefs through the First Amendment. Believing that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, no matter how terrible, these people go about calling others “snowflakes” just for protesting hate speech. Instead of actually understanding the harmful effects that have been proven by researchers they instead trivialize the effects (Neilsen 10-11). This type of resistive thinking is

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 paper is a comparative analysis of hate speech laws between Japan and United States. This essay will analyze hate rhetoric stemming from the years 1980-to present day. Today’s political climate has generated a rebirth of hate speech in both countries. Hate speech is a concerning matter for those who believe in the right to free speech and expression. They want to stop the hate, but at the same time, maintain the constitution. In support of my hypothesis, I will use scholarly reviews, landmark cases, and personal experiences.

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

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.

He believes that if hate speech is regulated then the first amendment is violated. I do agree with McMaster on this one stand point but it is not enough to make me against regulation. Gellman asks three questions, those are: "What are the costs to society as a whole of hate speech laws (which she calls ‘ethnic intimidation laws ')? Are there unexpected dangers for ethnic minority groups in the hate speech laws designed to protect them? Do hate speech laws actually achieve their objectives of ‘combating bigotry and encouraging equal dignity ' ?" (176). My answer to the first question is the cost to society is the hate and the bad relationships that there are in our society. The second question I answer as: no there are not unexpected dangers because this law protects them. Also to the third question I say that yes it will achieve their objective to reducing hate speech because of the consequences that will be given. Gates believes that "to regulate speech will lead to wider restrictions on free speech and to a weakening of civil rights" (182). Although it might put a damper on how people perceive the first amendment, I believe that it will not weaken our civil rights. These are the views of the three authors on being against regulating hate speech.

Hate speech is seen as a type of communication between individuals and parties and is used to influence people’s thoughts and bring emotion to the public which is evident in the article regarding hate speech as with the use of textual analysis and in-depth interviews important information was gained. An example of this is that by analysing the posts and comments most hate speech includes hatred towards homosexuality and religion and the posts will always favour one perspective which shows the effectiveness of analysing texts of hate speech and interviewing the producers of hate speech (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012). This emphasises the relationship between freedom of expression and political mobilization as hate speech is used to express one’s opinion about political issues according to Erjavec & Kovačič