The Influence Of Speech: Drawing The Line On Hate Speech

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

The amendment gives us freedom of speech, but it is sensible enough to protect from fraud, defamation, shouting fire when there is no fire and etc. Those limitation is to keep from inciting riots and hurting individuals. However, hate speech is defined by dictionary.com as speech that, "attacks... a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability." But what if someone wanted to express their beliefs, such as a child saying they hate black bears at the zoo? The parent could either suggest to the child to be quite and ignore them (censorship) or tape their mouth shout and force them to follow the parent around the zoo (limiting free speech). This is an extreme

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

     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).

Hate speech is a form of discrimination which is proscribed by section 9 of the Constitution on the basis of inter alia race and religion. Thus constitutional provisions do exist which would allow hate speech

The first amendment to the constitution is one that never seems to be debated itself, but its interpretation is often times debated. In saying this I mean that most everyone agrees that people should have the right to free speech, but what is often debated is where to draw the line. The question is, what is the difference is between someone using their right to free speech and them spewing hate speech. The first amendment is quite possibly the most important to maintaining our form government. It allows us, the people to have a say and speak on political topics among other things. The full first amendment, which was officially put into place alongside the second amendment in 1791, is made up of, for the most part, two basic points. It touches on religion and preventing freedom of speech or press “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.” The first of these points that touches on religion was first formed based upon one of the main reasons that

Trump as the president-elect has divided the country more than it has brought it’s people together. ‘There has always been hate and divisions,’ some would say. While this is true, this kind of prevalence has not been at the forefront of the political, personal, social, etc. sphere in a long while. Headlines are becoming more trigger inducing and there has been an uproar of hate crimes across the nation. While both sides have contributed to the hatefulness, the way that the hate is manifested is more rampant among supporters of Trump. This is seen through the way that the hate crime rate has gone up since November 8th. In more ways than one Trump’s election into office has given these people that have hate in them a pass, of sorts, to act on that hate and victimize others.

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

     When considering situations where censorship is necessary, it is important to analyze who might need protection. Often, children need to have the material they watch censored, because they themselves cannot distinguish how raw the material they are watching is. We need to protect our youth, as well as people of all other ages from that kind of raw material. It is possible that the material could be something of the hating nature. I believe that even though hate speech is not a possitive use of free speech, it is a right that is everyone's to practice. It is only when that speech begins to flirt with the idea of doing something about that hate, and possibly putting people in risk, when it should be controlled. There are

The First Amendment states Congress will have no right to prohibit or create laws against free speech, press, or religion. This documents in written word that all forms of speech and press are legal in the United States. Therefore,

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,

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 the first amendment of the United States constitution, American citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech. This is a fundamental right of American law, and one of the foundations of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the breeding ground for one of the most widely debated issues in America: What, if any, measures should be put into place to regulate hateful language? Most people will agree under one definition or another that hate speech is a socially deviant activity and worthy of some form of punishment. However, each person's definition of hate speech is different from the next. Some might say that there is no such thing as hate speech, and that because of the first amendment any and all speech should be

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.

We cannot just run into a crowded movie theater and yell fire. Similarly, it is illegal to make frivolous comments about a person when you know they aren’t true. This type of irresponsible behavior is prosecutable and could land you in jail. Free speech has never been a total right. There are a handful of restrictions applied to speech in this country in order to safeguard peace in our society. For example, the Supreme Court puts limits on speech containing fighting words, defamation, slander, and other speech that jeopardizes national security, or directly incites violence. Many other countries take it a few steps further by banning all speech that directly intimidates minority groups or those more likely to be oppressed. Hate speech is not an authentic form of expression and is not indicative of creative expression, symbolic or