Why Hate Speech Is Not Be Viewed By Public Access

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.

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.

In today 's society, politics has become the uproar of many citizens ' daily lives. Many would ask how has hate become such an issue in the United States. Moreover, how does hate and politics are similar to each other. The article “Vandalized by Speech” states “America 's future depends on how well we learn to manage our diversity. Yet when it comes to hate speech, we pretty much adhere to the advice we give elementary school students to defend themselves against bullies”. However, the author Gregory Rodriguez informs how giving a speech can over turn onto a hate approach. Mr. Rodriguez also quotes Jeremy Waldron a New York University political philosopher that “racist rhetoric is a slow-acting poison”. Additionally this causes those who have a positive outlook on society to become difficult to be good hearted people (Jeremy Waldron). Negative views on certain situations such as judging one of its nationality of being criminals depresses the political participation of citizens. Such cases can trigger signs of those who may have a disorder.

Harvey A. Silvergate stated in his article, “Muzziling Free Speech”, that “Our entire Country is a free speech zone, and that our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.” Free speech, in the form of hate speech, should be not regulated on American college campuses. Should hate speech be discouraged? Of course! However, developing policies that limit hate speech runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. The University of California System’s response to banning hate speech, speech codes in universities, law cases Doe v. University of Michigan and Sigma Chi Fraternity v George Mason University, and the view points of law professor Greg Margarian, proves why we should protect hate speech, even though it may seem wrong.

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.”

The purpose of this paper is to discuss public school districts' limits on "hate" speech and

“The term hate crime was coined in the 1980s by journalists and policy advocates who were attempting to describe a series of incidents directed at Jews, Asians and African-Americans. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime (also known as 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.(National Institute of justice, Paragraph 1, December 22, 2010.)”

The phrase “Hate Crime” rose to prominence in the 1980s, in an attempt to describe crimes against someone based on their race or religion. These crimes were motivated, at least in part and sometimes in entirety, by bias against African Americans and Jews. Since that time, the term has expanded to include illegal acts against a person, organization, and their property based on the criminal’s bias against the victim’s minority class. These minority classes include race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or gender reassignment. These are specific crimes because not only are they crimes against someone, they are committed based on who someone is (Martin 1996). This paper will discuss the history of hate crimes and the response of law enforcement officers to hate crimes.

<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

The legislation is needed to protect groups of victims commonly affected by hate crimes. Also, the legislation is also a public awareness effort to show that there is something being done about this issue. However, public awareness is also shed on the vulnerable groups that these crimes often affect. Some opponents of hate crime legislation argue that it violates the freedom of speech. Congress has decided that hate crime legislations would in no way limit freedom of speech. Unfortunately, preaching hatred against a particular group have always been protected forms of

Hate Crimes care awful and yet they happen every day. The thought that a hate crimes can happen anytime anywhere is not something that crosses everyone’s mind daily. Within this essay we will cover the typical individual who commits hate crimes, who the targets or victims of hate crimes are, what the causes and effects of hate crimes are, and what actions can be taken to minimize the amount and occurrence of hate crimes. Unfortunately hate crimes have been a part of the United States, prior to the United States being named. They are a part of our history as Americans, though it is not good history, it is still there. “A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment,

What is a hate speech for one may be an empowering speech for another. Many believe these speeches contribute to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs that allow for several different aspects of a situation to be analyzed. Others believe these words will start violent actions against those hated upon. However, old adages about sticks and stones exist for a reason: they are true. No matter the individual, people are capable of ignoring the hate if they so wish. Sometimes, many make claims so outrageous that not even the most zealous of advocates would argue them, bold statements such as saying all Middle Easterners should be tortured because they are all terrorists. It is not worth anyone’s time to argue against these, and creating a political issue surrounding that claim makes one appear foolish. However, several hate speeches are beneficial to the

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,

Injuries that are caused by language come from “words that are deliberately chosen to cause harm” (“How Words Can Harm”), and this is better known as hate speech. Hate speech usually includes thick concepts, terms relating to descriptive and evaluative content. Examples of thick concepts are words with a negative connotation, originated through history, used to “disparage a person for simply being who they are” (“How Words Can Harm”). The act of expressing these words are, therefore, unjustified. However, when moral reasoning is used for a situation having potential for hate speech, the words elicit a moral motivation, such as with the umbrella scenario, for the prevention of verbal attacks. It is within the best interests of the potential

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.