The Importance Of Hate Speech

In order to uphold the integrity of our democracy, constitution and higher education standards, there must be an effort to preserve free speech on college campuses. However, in equal measure as illustrated in the First Amendment, students should also be protected from hate speech and provided an equal chance of receiving a safe education. Perhaps it is beneficial to also consider however, that a ‘safe’ education should not be misinterpreted as an entirely un-offensive one. In order to assist in the political discussion and recommended courses of action regarding free speech on college campus, political philosophers’ John Stuart Mill and John Rawls texts’ will be referred to and analyzed in this essay.

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.”

In Anthony Lewis’ Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, the author explores the history of the first amendment in the constitution, and goes through multiple examples of instances in American history where our true freedom of speech was questioned.

Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison. The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever-important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.

Back in the year of 1791, when our grand country was at the tender age of fifteen, two gentlemen gathered together to form a written document that would protect their newly attained freedom. These written principles, later know as the Bill of Rights, were penned primarily by George Mason and James Madison. The Founding Fathers of the American public’s home country. It is interesting to note that not only were these two men the authors of Bill of Rights but were also successful in their own careers too. George Mason, a prospering planter in the state of Virginia and James Madison a graduate of the College of New Jersey, known as present day Princeton. Madison was a lawyer by trade, but was driven with a profound interest in ministry. They came together to compose one of the greatest treasures in the nation’s history: the Bill of Rights. In this written expository, this author will be discussing the first of the ten of these amendments: the amendment that guarantees Americans the freedom of Speech. The necessity of free speech and the important values it contains is a main foundation for this country, therefore, Rosenblatt 's argument for the freedom of “expression” is valid because it certifies our right to speak freely, form an opinion, and exercise the correct function of democracy while on American soil.

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

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

Derek Bok argues that American dedication to democracy is embodied in the Frist Amendment and that the freedoms granted in this Amendment are the building blocks of dialogues that contribute to cohesive communities born out of differences. The problem, however, according to Bok, is the difficulty of balancing the protection of these freedoms on campuses and universities where reasoned expression of diverse ideas is encouraged. Bok offers the suggestion that rather than attempt to stifle expression by imposing penalties for what might be considered offensive speech, “speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their action on others” (69). While this suggestion might imply a reasoned and

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

Jeremy Waldron argues in favor of hate speech restrictions in his book “The Harm in Hate Speech”. He presents the central argument that vulnerable minorities are in need of hate speech regulation to protect them from harm. Another argument he presents is that such regulation must be a content-based regulation, as opposed to a time, place, and manner restriction that is usually employed to prevent certain kinds of speech. A final argument he uses is that speech is the harmful action, rather than speech simply causing harmful actions. I do not find his arguments to be compelling enough reasons to support restricting free speech with hate speech laws.

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.

America’s history is filled with constant arguing, debating, and bickering. Because America is so diverse and full of people with differing opinions, it is important that everyone is given a voice. The Bill of Rights is opened with the 1st amendment, which consists of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. These are the cornerstones of American society, and the freedom to assemble has guided America to where it is today. This promise was a direct response to many events in colonial America, has been defended in court as shown is the case of the Village of Skokie vs. the National Socialist Party, and was pushed to its limit at the White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville, yet the persistence of this right proves how controversy succumbs to the freedom of expression.

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

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.