The Importance Of Hate Speech On The Internet

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.

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

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,

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

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.

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.

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

Many social media users, for example, have felt the blow of a very hurtful comment from strangers or friends hidden behind a false identity. For example, Twitter has become a venue where anyone from famous politicians, Hollywood elite, to one’s immediate family may spew out inflammatory and bombastic comments that they would never utter in a face to face encounter. This kind of startling exchange is just a sample of how toxic the Internet can be when the users are not accountable and can hide behind the screen of the internet. Due to the loss of face-to-face contact while online, some people obviously feel free to say whatever they want, and with the lack of initial personal reaction from the recipient of these remarks, the online troll feels no remorse. In the article, "Hiding Behind the Screen," Roger Scruton states, "In human relations, risk avoidance means the avoidance of accountability, the refusal to stand judged in another’s eyes, the refusal to come face to face with another person…to run the risk of rejection. Accountability is not something should avoid; it is something we need to learn.” (59). This statement makes one wonder if the cultural shift to online communication and the inevitable lack of

The idea of hate speech has been something that courts can’t seem to find a middle ground about; however, recent strides have brought us closer to eradicating this action. The first major supreme court case regarding hate speech occurred in 1992 in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul involved a young, white male burning a cross on a black family’s front lawn. The supreme court ruled that this action was part of the boy’s free speech guaranteed in the first amendment. People often overlook the fact that the boy could have been held responsible for damaging the family’s property. Another case occurred in 1993 in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, where Mitchell and a group of black men were outside a theater which showed a racially insensitive

Many pro-speech advocates argue that policies restricting hate speech are always overbroad which leads to a chilling effect in which people are afraid to say anything controversial in fear of punishment and thus, ideas are suppressed in the process. Nevertheless, in the case of hate speech, rights of students to a proper education, uninterrupted by intentional expressions of hate should easily surpass students and professors’ rights to complete free speech. Hate speech on campus causes psychological harm and emotional distress to those that it is directed towards and is a form of discrimination that strips its target of their dignity. Vulnerable minorities subjected to hate speech feel unwelcome, which disrupts their education and opportunities. Additionally, hate speech silences its victims rendering them powerless in comparison to the strength of the majority. This effect is in direct opposition of the ultimate goal of free speech. The objective of free speech is to have controversial speech answered with more speech by the opposing side; however, hate speech eliminates the opposing side from engaging in the countering speech response, thus the exchanging of ideas is disrupted. Furthermore, the dangers of hate speech are apparent when looking at countries comparable to the United States, such as Germany, England, and Canada, all of which have laws in place that make hate speech a punishable crime. If almost all other democratic countries fear the consequences of hate speech enough to compose laws proscribing it, then this type of harm should not be allowed on campuses which encompass young and vulnerable individuals. Overall, hate speech undermines the peace on campus, interferes with the educational environment of minorities, and is contradictory to the mission of free speech in that more speech is

Hate speech is taking over our lives we get separated into groups defining what we believe in. Imagine yourself in a crowd of people fighting for your rights but in never ends. America should limit hate speech because hate speeches caused divisions in our cultures, Hate speech conducted into riots and violence it also relates to fights and citizens getting in deep trouble on social media.

Making laws that prohibit hateful digital hate speech need to be carefully crafted in order to not be deemed unconstitutional. In fact in Albany County in New York they ran into this very problem. The county passed a law that was too broad which resulted in it meddling with the First Amendment. The law was meant to ban hateful conversation through electronic communication by making it illegal to “...harass, annoy, threaten...or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person”. In the end, the wording of the law made it legal to penalize someone for an annoying phone call. (Wiessner par. 1-15).

Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to

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.

It was never imagined all those years ago that hatred would be expressed through a computer to affect a person on the other side receiving the narcissism. Hate Speech has a very negative impact on those who are viewing it on the internet. That hatred is then passed along to others to share who have the same beliefs and want to condemn the people who are different from them. All this hatred is on the internet for the world to see. As a result, people have learned to accept it as a social norm in today’s society. This is completely wrong. People should not accept people’s negative criticism. Doing this will lower everyone’s self esteem or allow them to think that being racist or a bigot is acceptable and not punishable. People should be punished for Hate Speech on the internet, Since it IS a crime. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 19 states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression--It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions--For respect of the rights or reputations of others--For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals (Eissens, Ronald).” The majority of the Hate Speech is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and religious minorities. How can there be a bright future for the world when every few months