The Pros And Cons Of Hate Speech

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.”

According to the University of Colorado, many political jurisdictions have enacted laws that forbid destructive speech. These laws give the police power to investigate persons suspect of committing hate speech. If found guilty, the persons are tried and punished according to the law. Although many insist that hate speech should be illegal, the First Amendment still stands; the right of free speech applies to every citizen of the United States and if restrictions are set, then that liberty is taken away.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution of December 1791, guaranteed the civil liberty of freedom of speech. It outlined that congress is not allowed to make any laws that may bridge a citizen’s freedom of speech, religion, press, and the right to assemble. This style of liberty gives all Americans the opportunity to express their thoughts openly without being shut down by the government. For example, there have been a great deal of protest the current president. Although, he is the president and should be respected Americans still have the right to display their opinions

<br>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

Neil Gaiman once said, “The current total of countries in the world with First Amendments is one. You have guaranteed the freedom of speech. Other countries don’t have that.” At the time of the amendments’ creation, a vast majority of operating countries had not yet granted their people such freedoms. Granting every citizen of the United States this right seemed to have been an important landmark in this nation’s history. Along with others, this right is declared to the people in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment is the most important because it grants people freedom of speech, prohibits prior restraint, and declares the right to peaceable assembly.

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

President Ronald Reagan said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it down to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” As citizens of America, it is our responsibility to keep the freedoms we have thriving in our everyday lives. Among these are the initial rights given to Americans in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Of these five freedoms, three are constant in our everyday lives. The freedom of religion, the freedom of press, and the freedom of speech.

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.

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.

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,

However, these ideas cannot be simply dismissed because they are central to the American perspective on the necessity of hate speech legislation. Waldron fails to address in an effective way why he is able to dismiss these central ideas. In doing so, he is practically admitting to the reader that his ideas are based outside of the framework of the reality of American free speech tradition. The strength of his argument suffers from the fact that his argument is not applicable to the reality of American society’s views on free speech.

For generations, we as a society have evaluated what we call our freedoms, as they constantly continue to influence our quality of life. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt's Message to Congress promised the people of America Four Freedoms, or freedoms that are imperative to human life. These freedoms included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Freedom of speech goes back to the first amendment where there is the liberty of expression. Freedom of worship allows people to practice any belief system they desire, as well as worship the God that they please. Freedom from want meant no citizen should have to yearn for the basic needs to survive, and should be provided with a standard living. Finally, freedom from fear meant for there to be no fear of having to use aggression against a neighbor, in addition to being granted peace and a sense of security. These were the guaranteed freedoms stated by the president for the future. However, as time progressed and certain events in history began occurring, these freedoms may have slipped from view and become less practiced. It is clear to see that the United States government did not effectively uphold these freedoms during, the time the U.S declared war against the Japanese, during the scare of Communism, and in the day to day life for citizens in minority groups.

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.

In scenario number one, the main controversy up for debate is the topic of hate speech and whether it is protected under the First Amendment. Additionally, another question to address is whether individuals who may espouse hate speech are protected by the First Amendment to peacefully assemble in the public sphere. Prior to addressing these issues, it is important to understand the case law surrounding hate speech and the government’s capacity to regulate speech. One method is prior restraint, which specifies that the “government may prosecute individuals who violate legitimate restrictions on expression but, absent extraordinary circumstances, may not intervene before the fact”.

One of the greatest controversies when deciding the rules that a university should have is whether to prohibit hate speech, or ignore it under the constitution as a form of free speech. In this paper, I will consider the disturbance that hate speech creates in a learning environment for the conclusion that the University of Florida should prohibit hate speech. I will then consider the first amendment under the Constitution as an objection to this argument, but will conclude that hate speech should be prohibited on campus.