The New Yorker Vs Free Speech Analysis

An Islamic student living in Paris says “When you look at a Muslim it is tough” and his has definitely been the case for many non muslim Parisians looking for answers to the senseless lives taken. Muslim Parisians are worried of late that they will be blamed for the conflict caused in the ‘name’ of their religion. The Muslim community have expressed their thoughts on this matter and have stated that they are not shocked at the attacks as Muslims but has Parisian citizens. France Muslims have urged others to believe that during the attacks it wouldn't have mattered if you were muslim or christian ,your life was at risk and together as Parisians they will stand to

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.

Brayden Libby Mrs. Pound English II PreAP/Block 7 14 May 2018 Rhetorical Analysis of “Hate Speech and the First Amendment” In an article titled “Hate Speech and the First Amendment”, the author provides an overview of the debate and opposing side’s viewpoints. The author adopts an unbiased tone in order to convey key topics of the debate to an audience that is already putting up defenses to protect their stance. The purpose of the article is to suggest that the boundaries between opposing parties can be overcome by finding a middle ground in how to handle hate speech through the objective use of rhetorical devices.

While I won’t claim that free speech is without its flaws, I will contend that it is itself necessary to equality which was brought up as a counter argument. When we allow speech that has no impact on public safety to be regulated we open the door to interpretation, this is a gamble. Does the interpreter share my views, or yours, or someone else’s entirely? What would America look like if the proponents of slavery were allowed to regulate speech on the topic, or the world if the National Socialist had achieved their goals? Speech can harm, it can be hateful, and cause adverse reactions, but so can many things we think nothing of because they serve to facilitate everyday life. If we regulate speech based on harm it will only be as harmless as those that regulate it. I think that is something most wouldn’t care to risk, regardless of color, creed, or nationality. When a majority solution can’t be found we as a people tend to prefer freedom as the doctrine so we may all be equal in

Foreigners are struck over the idea of hate speech being what it is, viewing it as the same thing as free speech when the two are very different. Epps’ further notes that there are documents that protect racial and religious hate speech since the mid-1960’s. Epps’ main argument he expresses is the way people from other countries believe that ‘Free Speech’ and 1st Amendment rights are one in the same. The author goes on to explain that in many other countries the people don't reject the idea of free speech, they reject the claim that supposedly protects The Innocence of Muslims.

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.”

This article was published nearly a year ago online in the National Review, which hosts articles across a wide conservative spectrum. The intended audience of this article is Americans who do not agree that the freedom of speech portion of the First Amendment is important, or that hate speech should be exempted from it. The week prior to the publishing of this article, two terrorists had attacked the Garland Community Center with gunfire in front of an exhibit depicting cartoon images of Muhammad. The author, Tom Rogan, was based in Washington, DC at the time and was a panelist on The McLaughlin Group and held the Tony Blankley chair at the Steamboat Institute. The McLaughlin Group is a conservative TV program in which citizens discuss the

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

In light of the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo Headquarters in early 2015, the topic of free speech seemed to regalvanize. This conversation will only pick up more momentum and fully convicted sentiments with the rise of social movements like the Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Warrior movements. Edward Morrisey writes his article, The Coming Demise of Free Speech in America, to share information regarding the first amendment, respective court cases, and the results of an implementation of a hypothetical ‘hate speech’ law.

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

He believes that since hate speech legislation is seen as acceptable and necessary in most developed nations that it is therefore the principles are also applicable to the United States. He openly admits that he does not accept any assumptions that make up free-speech jurisprudence, because they are contrary to his views on how society needs to address hateful speech. The assumptions he rejects include the tendency for truth to prevail in the marketplace of ideas, the effectiveness of counter speech, and that content-based restrictions are bad.

This can be seen when discussing France as a secular nation, how religion and the state are at conflict with each other and how adherents of Islam are uniform with beliefs in relation to this potentially unconstitutional law.

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,

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through

While some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but we should not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others.