We Must NOT Regulate Hate Speech Essay examples

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

In the name of free speech, hate speech should not be tolerated. Hate speech has devastating effects on the people and communities it is targeted at. Left unchecked hate speech can lead to harmful and violent effects. Over the past few years, the effects of hate speech used on women, homosexuals, ethnic groups and religious minorities have become more and more apparent. Hate speech can be very divisive in many of the situations it is used, depending on who interprets the expression can vary how people react, due to hate speech, not being easy defend when it does not hurt that certain person or community. If left uncheck hate speech can develop into harmful narratives that remain. While hate speech is not against the law, some have begun

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

According to Charles R. Lawrence III, hate speech in the United States is unacceptable and represent it’s kind of restriction on the use of free speech. On his speech on hate speech, he claims that the hate speech silences the voices of the minority groups among the citizens and causes them to be excluded from free exchange of ideas and the promotion of their right to freedom of expression. In his speech, he first examines the Supreme Court outcome and decision in Brown vs. Board of Education case, where he urges that this is one of the most important facts on the equal protection laws in the United States of America. In this case, he shows that prejudice is part of racist speech. Furthermore, he extends that everyone is entitled to participation as a member of society and that separate schools undermine the idea of expression. Additionally, he asserts that hate speech restricts the involvement of these minority groups and thus it should be legislated.

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

In his essay “ In Defense of Prejudice”, Jonathan Rauch explores a much talked about topic in the United States today, prejudice. As his title implies, he is in defense of prejudice, he makes it clear that he is not a supporter of hate or racism, rather a supporter of “intellectual pluralism” “which permits the expression of various forms of bigotry and always will.” (pg 1). Rauch defends the right to express all forms of bigotry. By utilizing specific examples where prejudice is at center stage, Rauch tries to convince his readers that the solution to prevent prejudice is not attempting to eradicate it, rather he believes if we, as a society channel prejudice more effectively we can make it “socially productive.” Ranch defends his

The topic of hate crime is so controversial because there can be different perspectives on the whole issue, which can eventually cause a massive huge debate on the entire matter. In Ben Gillis article called Understanding Hate Crime Statutes and Building Towards a Better System in Texas, the author separates his points in a way that can give the reader a better way of understanding the Hate Crime laws and the effects of it. Gillis’s way of dissecting the article is extremely effective due to the fact that not only he explains what exactly a hate crime is in its basic form but he also explains hate crime in its entirety, and he also shows how some states adapt to the whole issue. People may ask in what way does it make it in a sense “illegal”

The hate crime legislations in the United States need to clearly define and identify hate crimes. Title 18 of the United States Code allows prosecutors to prosecute anyone who intentionally injures, intimidate, interferes with someone else, or attempts to do so, by force because of a person’s race, color, religions, or

The first dimension of speech that West identifies is perhaps also the most basic part of what is comprehended in the term ‘free speech’: the production and distribution of words. West suggests several ways in which the free distribution of racist hate speech can deprive its targets of the ability to do the same. There is the threat implicit in racist hate speech due to the history of racially motivated violence, the physiological ‘speechlessness’ that can take hold in the aftermath of a fear response such as a hate speech may provoke, and the damage to self-esteem which may prevent the targets of racial hate speech from feeling themselves to have any

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,

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

The argument given by Rae Langton in her podcast on whether hate speech should be outlawed in the USA (the argument strictly speaks in terms of the USA) is rather decent as she presents logical claims, yet ultimately the entire argument in itself could be strengthened to a greater degree. The conclusion she gives is that hate speech should be outlawed in the USA. However, she includes many implicit and dependent premises that can be refuted in some form, as they do not directly support the conclusion. In this essay, I will attempt go through three of the most relevant propositions, evaluate them, and provide ways in which they can be improved.

John Stuart Mill’s explanation of the harm principle is not as useful as once believed. Although the harm principle does in fact have some logic, it fails to set clear and concise borders regarding what denotes allowable hate speech. The harm principle essentially states that all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. However, speech that causes a definable harm must be censored. For example, merely offensive speech is allowed; however, the context of the offensive speech in question is important in understanding when to apply Mill’s harm principle. The principle has some major flaws, as Mill does not take into consideration the numerous factors that must be examined before deciding whether or not to apply the principle, such as

The argumentative paper “How can we ban insults against Jews, but not Muslims” by William Saletan discusses his opinion upon how insults have been selectively banned on within countries. Saletan is a writer from the online magazine Slate and he primarily writes about science, technology, and politics. Saletan discussed how multiple bans restricting the use of slurs and derogatory words about Jewish people exist around the world. His criticism is about how these bans are unique to those of the Jewish faith and do not include another heavily criticized religious group the Muslim people of the world. In this appeal to the average educated America adult, he stressed the idea of favoring free speech over potentially “silencing minorities” (Saletan 96). He