We Must Stop Hate 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.

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

A 2005 study conducted by National Institute of Justice, found that the Federal Government and all but one state, Wyoming, have laws related to hate crimes. A consistent problem identified by this study is there in no consistency in defining what constitutes a hate crime. (Carrie F. Mulford, Ph.D., & Michael Shively, Ph.D., Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues, 257, Nat’l Inst Just., (2007). “The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime—also called bias crime—as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” ld.

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

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

<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

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,

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

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.

Over the course of American history, many have taken the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and created wonderful things out of it. Alice Paul is an excellent example: she utilized her right to free speech and press to promote the equality of women and earned them the right to vote, in the midst of World War I. However, many take it the other way and create hate speeches where they tear down one particular group or individual or idea with their crude and blunt remarks. Yet, they are protected by the freedom of speech and the government cannot interfere with their actions, causing many to argue the First Amendment Right cannot be extended to anyone making hurtful remarks. Hate speeches need to be protected by the freedom of speech, as shown in legal documentation, moral issues, and the benefits it creates.

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.

“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.

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