The Issue Of Hate Speech Promulgated Through The Internet

It is about time we have some filters or establish and enforce legal ramifications on the use of the internet when hate speech is identified in all 50 states. These legal ramifications should be extended to people in authority who use information from the internet to get to their subordinates. The internet has radically changed the way we get and disseminate information. The internet is a place to express free speech and just be yourself, but this has many times come back to hunt users in a negative way. This paper will be looking at how schools, workplaces, and even other users misuse the idea of free speech on the internet and why we need to filter hate speech and introduce legal ramifications for these actions.

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

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.

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.

Social media can connect millions of people together, in any instant location. However, many of these platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, have blasphemous users who fire up heated debates, following up with explicit language. Such opinions often times involve incitement and defamation targeted against the opposing party. However, because the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, the U.S. Government has not strictly reprimanded the misuse of the amendment. Some citizens view hate speech as a form of speech that attacks and offends an individual or group based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or ethnic origin while others see it as a part of the First Amendment, and having it appealed, will precede with negative criticisms. There are others who are not concerned of the topic at hand completely which identifies how impactful this problem is. It has been apparent more so on social media, where people demonstrate their right to freedom of speech because they are more likely to voice their opinions individually when others are not present. The debate still continues to decide if the First Amendment should be revised due to hate speech on social media since it has promoted indirect violence, incivility amongst the online communities and has lowered ethical codes in the American society.

As a constitutional right, people often exercise their right to freedom of speech believing that they also have the right to voice their opinions which can be provocative to opposing parties no matter where they stand. There is a defining line between what can be constituted as hate speech and free speech. Depending on the way that it is expressed, voicing an opinion can easily be misinterpreted causing certain people to feel threatened or attacked, then leading to dangerous physical outbursts. The right to exercise one’s own opinion that can challenge or provoke others should be deterred or at least limited if safety of all parties, even those not directly involved, cannot be guaranteed.

The discussion of hate speech has been going on since the late nineties with the rise of internet usage. People, on both sides of the political spectrum, often debate about the topic at hand. On one side, people are worried that freedom of speech will be abused and used as a tool of oppression; however, the government disagreed. The Supreme Court did three cases that highlighted hate speech: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, R.A.V v. City of St. Paul, and Snyder v. Phelps. Those cases protected freedom of speech and hate speech even if upset a lot of people. And people on the other side are scared that their viewpoints would be silenced like how conservative speakers’ voices were. It resulted in supporters of those speakers

“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.

Out of all the thing the United States guarantees the first amendment is the one Americans put the highest enforce on. For this reason it is quite tricky to put regulations on the Internet pertaining to anything even if the thing in question is harmful to another human being. The United States Supreme Court has tried to make expectations to the freedom of speech rule but with no avail. This concludes that getting the United States government to create a law to regulate hate speech on the Internet is slightly out of the question

The American debate regarding censorship of hate speech is moving from traditional forms to newer ones found online. In particular, the internet has become a key organizing tool for hate groups. There is a large growing group of Internet members who can access the Internet and can have the opportunity to express an opinion about anything to compose their thoughts to the World Wide Web audience. The Internet allows freedom of expression without any limitations or regulation. Some viewers find the resultant of speech to be exciting and other viewers see speech over the Internet to be insulting, degrading, and offensive. Often when people are interacting on social media they cross over the line. Frequently one person’s right to free

Of course the misunderstandings around hate speech don’t end there. Those in favor of criminalizing hate speech often cite other western countries where hate speech is already punishable by law. Most conspicuous example being Canada, where section 319 subsection 2 of the Criminal Code explicitly states that willful promotion of hatred, other than in private conversation, may result in prison sentence of two years. What often seems to be left out is subsection (3) where defenses for this law are described, one of them being “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)… if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.” So, while yes, some countries do have laws prohibiting hate speech,

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

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

To these theorists, online hate speech is a danger to human rights, as it fosters a fear based climate for the victims. Additionally, when white supremacists and other hate groups target minorities online, it rarely remains just “free speech.” In these cases, the internet acts as a medium for individuals to gather support from others, and this often results in encouragement for action. When a right to free speech results in minorities having to stay in their homes in fear of being assaulted, we must ask ourselves who’s speech is free. Speech free from government regulation benefits white supremacists and attackers because it allows them to come together to form communities which is far more dangerous than an

Hate speech a type of message between two or more people that conveys a meaning that is repugnant, but the repugnance stems from the content of the message and not from its form. The issue of hate speech or hate propaganda, now trending topic to debate has many sides regarding what is or isn’t politically correct to say. Although now reaching a lot of popularity, hate speech is not a new issue and had a ground-breaking case in 1984 when James Keegstra, a high school teacher in Alberta was charged under s. 319(2) (Wilful Promotion of Hatred) of the Criminal Code for making anti-Semitic statements to his students. His teachings described Jewish people as treacherous, subversive, sadistic, money-loving, power hungry, child killers and more. These teachings were expected to be reflected in examinations and marks that students received on those exams suffered if they failed to replicate his teachings. The major issues debated around this case were focused in four areas and discuss the logistics of s. 319(2) and how the hate propaganda section in the Criminal Code contradicts some rights listed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.