We Must Stop Hate Speech

On October 7, 1989, Todd Mitchell, a young black man, instigated an attack against a young white boy. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County. Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 U.S. 47 (Wis. 1993). Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County. ld. According to Wisconsin statute, Mitchell's sentence was increased, because the court found that he had selected his victim based on race. ld. This is an example of the state of Wisconsin enhancing punishment based upon

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

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.

Ferguson case of 1896 in which the Supreme Court upheld the legality of racial segregation. At the time of the case, segregation between blacks and whites already existed in most schools, restaurants and other public facilities. In the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the Supreme Court that such of a segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The 14th Amendment provided equal protection of law to all U.S. citizens regardless of the citizens race. The court ruled that the Plessy v. Ferguson case was legal as long as black and whites were equal. After this law came to be, public schools, public transportation and other public facilities were made separate; but they never had made these places equal. Equality represents what the United States stands for. We the people work together in marches, protests to oppose discrimination on the basis of race and gender. The Sacco and Vanzetti case showed the world that the how justice system in the United States really was. Sacco and Vanzetti received an unfair trial and were sentenced to death, not due to the evidence being presented, but due to their political beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. As Americans, we tend to be afraid of what happens and due to these fears we forget about what it truly means to be an American. This is the world we live in and quite some times, things are unfair; it’s the way the world

Paul, cross burning and freedom of speech were again found in the limelight in the case of Virginia v. Black. In this case, three men were convicted of violating a Virginia state statute that made it a felony to “for any person...with the intent of intimidating any person or group...to burn...a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place," and specifies that "any such burning...shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group”(Oyez VB). After the men stood trial and were convicted, they appealed to the state of Virginia’s Supreme Court stating that the statutes prima facie clause of intent to intimidate was unconstitutional. The state supreme court overturned their convictions because it found the statute to be unconstitutional. The State of Virginia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The question facing the Supreme Court was, did Virginia’s statute against cross burning violate the First Amendment, when cross burning was viewed to be a form of expression? While the Supreme Court found that the statute’s prima facie clause to be unconstitutional, it did find that Virginia’s ban on cross burning, as a means of intimidation was constitutional. Speaking on behalf of a 6-3 majority, Justice O’Connor stated “…the First Amendment also permits a state to ban a 'true threat’... a prohibition on ‘true threats' protects individuals from the fear of violence.

The first amendment is broad and open to interpretation, which is what makes it so difficult to decided whose speech is correct and whose speak crosses the line. Fighting words and hate speech are not mentioned in the first amendment, but they are important factors to consider regarding the first amendment. Can fighting words and hate speech cause violence against others? Is hate speech protected? These questions have gone through our courts and have furthered increase our knowledge of how freedom of speech is addressed in the court system.

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

In today’s society the matter of Freedom of Speech is being questioned. The use of “Hate Speech” is being used to identify words and actions that often target ethnic and racial groups, those with gender related differences, and the beliefs of others in general. Is it acceptable to express ones ideas and actions if it brings about distention among a nation? Should it be acceptable to destroy symbolic icons on which American history was founded? Is it permissible to single out individuals with harmful actions or words because their beliefs don’t line up with our own? The pros and cons of these questions must be examined in order to determine whether or not “Hate Speech” should or should not be considered a crime. 123

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.

“GOD HATES FAGS” is the kind of hate speech used by the members of Westboro Baptist Church to grab headlines and national attention. The public backlash against them has been almost universal. The public opinion that it is reprehensible and unnecessarily hurtful is at the center of the debate on whether or not some hate speech should be made illegal. An interesting side effect is it can have a polarizing effect for good. It can bring people together to stand up against the person or group speaking out of hatred. This type of rhetoric has taken many forms and had many sources over the years. Other examples include public anger towards Muslims after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, much of the debate about the Civil Rights movement in the ‘60s, and even comments by current presidential candidates all can be considered hate speech. As much as this type of hurtful language is instantly and historically detested it is still protected by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. A recent case against Westboro Baptist church went all the way to the Supreme Court and their freedom to say these morally reprehensible things was upheld (Richey, 2011). Hate speech is something that should be protected by the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

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.

Hate speech is when a group or person attack(s) based on/goes against attributes such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. With this definition, hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment. Just because something is offensive, does not mean that people have no right to express his or her beliefs. It is under the First Amendment of our constitution where it states that all people are granted the freedom of speech. It does not say that hate speech is not protected by that law. Hate speech should not be protected by the first amendment only if violence takes place and threats are being made– that is when it becomes a crime.

The first couple of weeks in this semester we discussed a lot in class about the power of language. One of the main thing we talked about is what the difference between hate and free speech is, and what the first amendment does to control them both. The first amendment states that congress shall make no law that abridges the freedom of speech. But to what extent should language be protected? The rights of one man should reach until they shadow over another’s. Meaning free speech is protected until it violates the rights of another. Hate speech is the line where free speech becomes unconstitutional. The contrast between free speech and hate speech is a heavily discussed topic in today’s society, for good reason. The differences between the two can be blurred and hard to distinguish at times. This is because the very definition of hate speech is disputed. I was taught in class, and know, hate speech to be any language that incites violence upon a particular religion, race, or any classification of individuals. Because threatening violence upon a group violates their constitutional rights that is where the line is drawn. On the other hand, some consider the definition to include offending or insulting these groups of people, this definition is misleading. Technically under the first amendment one is allowed to be insulting toward factions they just cannot cross that line of violence. A good example of this, which was brought up in class, is Donald Trump. He has been quoted

Does freedom of speech give us the right to use hate speech? With the rise of social media, people are now able to freely express their opinions to the entire world. Because of this, hate speech has become a subject that is often debated. Many people are on the side of the argument that says that hate speech isn’t protected by the first amendment. But they are wrong, and whether people like it or not, we have the right to use hate speech.