The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech And Hate Speech

In today’s society the matter of Freedom of Speech is being questioned. The use of “Hate Speech” is being used to identify words and actions that often target ethnic and racial groups, those with gender related differences, and the beliefs of others in general. Is it acceptable to express ones ideas and actions if it brings about distention among a nation? Should it be acceptable to destroy symbolic icons on which American history was founded? Is it permissible to single out individuals with harmful actions or words because their beliefs don’t line up with our own? The pros and cons of these questions must be examined in order to determine whether or not “Hate Speech” should or should not be considered a crime. 123

According to the University of Colorado, many political jurisdictions have enacted laws that forbid destructive speech. These laws give the police power to investigate persons suspect of committing hate speech. If found guilty, the persons are tried and punished according to the law. Although many insist that hate speech should be illegal, the First Amendment still stands; the right of free speech applies to every citizen of the United States and if restrictions are set, then that liberty is taken away.

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

Hate speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

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

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.

     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).

Throughout many years, people have protested and rioted against many things such as gay rights and immigration. To many people, this is considered what is called hate speech. Hate speech is speech that attacks people based on race, sexual orientation, gender, or any other personal attributes. For many years, people have had debates about if hate speech should or should not be protected by the First Amendment. This debate could cause the leaders of the United States to form new laws.

The Founding Fathers struggled to create a free and equal society, because the colonies had been under the British rule, which oppressed them and gave them no religious freedoms and civil liberties. The colonies were kind of scared that this would happen all over again within this new government. After the Constitution was written in 1787, the new country was directly divided into two political parties, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. At that time most of the States believed that the Constitution by itself was enough but others felt that they needed more guarantees. After much debates, the two sides found a middle ground when the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution in 1791 but it only guaranteed

“You’re nothing but a savage.” “People like you should burn in hell.” These are some things a lot of people hear very frequently. Hate speech is speech that offends or threatens specific groups such as: race, sexual orientation, or religion. Hate speech is protected under the first amendment even though it is harmful. There is debate on whether it should be banned or not and while I do think hate speech is unacceptable I feel it is unlikely it will be banned. It is possible to diminish its presence by making it widely unaccepted and socially punished.

The First Amendment has brought up debates over the years, which most recently have centered around hate speech and hate groups. Congress and state governments can make no law that takes away the freedom of speech. However, some people feel that hate speech and hate groups violate their civil liberties. A hate group is an organization whose goals are based on the hatred of a specific group(s) of people, and the group must have a hate based purpose. Hate speech is speech that threatens, offends, or insults members of a group(s). All Americans have rights and liberties of their own, and wish they are not infringed by others. Despite people believing hate groups should not have the right to free speech if it is hate speech, the US Supreme Court has ruled that hate groups are protected under the First Amendment.

In this day and age, we are subject to many instances of harmful hate speech, even if it is not directed toward us. The current legal standing in the United States state that the government cannot limit speech on the basis of its content. Thus, speech cannot be censored because its message is racist, religious, sexist, or inspirational. While the prevailing attitude in the American judicial

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

​Hate speech, although a relatively new term when related to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence, has found its way into the context of interpretations. According to researcher, Chiang, there is no clear definition for hate speech but, as it was coined in the 1990s, it is often used to refer to verbal attacks against an individual based on demographics that are covered under the equal rights laws. For instance, these can include, but are not limited to, “speech attacks on an individual or group based on race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation or preference” (Chiang, 274-75). These verbal attacks are considered to be violations of human rights as they elicit negative feelings in the

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