The landmark case speaks “directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of defeatism affected the hearts and minds” of the students (Lawrence 2088). The message still emerges in today’s society through the racial comments on minorities. The harassment and demeaning towards the minority students because of their difference in culture and race is inhumane. They deserve to be able to attend school without fearing that they might be a perpetrator's next target of racially assaulting speech. The racial slurs and “harassment often causes deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear” that filters through the victim's life (Lawrence 2088). People need to acknowledge that “there is real harm inflicted by racist speech and that this harm is far from trivial” (Lawrence 2087). By accepting Lawrence’s argument that the regulation of racist speech can alleviate the damages done to minorities, there will be a positive outcome regarding the mental health of minorities. The benefits of regulating assaultive racist speech is the diminishment of negative psychological thoughts of the minorities. Racist speech causes the minorities to think negatively about themselves since the perpetrator emphasizes that being a minority means that they are inferior, which increases the chance of the minorities clouding themselves with
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.
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
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.
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.
<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
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,
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.”
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
The issue of hate speech reveals that the freedom offered by Liberalism is not absolute nor is it perfect. However, this essay still maintains that the freedoms offered by Liberalism significantly outweigh its failings, especially when compared with Fascism or Communism. First of all, this essay defines hate speech as “speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes like… religion,” (Nockleby, 2000, 1277-79). The issue of hate speech presents an interesting paradox; taking action against hate speech could be construed as an attack on freedom of speech, a liberal ideal. As a result, Liberalism is often stuck at a crossroads, take action and impinge upon freedom of speech or stay passive and betray the ideals of religious pluralism
Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also
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
Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.
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.