Why Ronald Eissens Hate Speech On The Internet Should Be Regulated

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

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 a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

Critical preface: I choose to explore the hate crime problem in society. The reason I choose this topic is because hate crime is a brutal act against people, property, or society because of the group to which they are members or associate with. The hate crime is one of the most notorious crimes which leads to violent acts causing death and disaster. We need to stop these horrible acts and the solution would be to seek advice from an anti-hate organization which help us reduce hate crimes and factual information can then be spread to the society.

Where hate speech and the motivation for performing an act intersect, the subtleties must be addressed so that there is no confusion as to where the line is exactly drawn. The debate on hate speech and its protection due to the 1st Amendment is a sensitive subject as minute details can turn the tide on whether a criminal is guilty of an act or

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.

Hate crimes can be described as criminal activities that are perceived to be fueled by prejudice against and hostility towards the victim based on an individual characteristic. In most cases, hate crimes are motivated by gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, identity, and religion or faith. The increase in hate crimes in the recent past has not only made it a major issue that needs to be addressed in the modern society but has also attracted several legislative measures to deal with it. However, dealing with this major societal issue not only requires these legislative measures but also necessitate creative and critical thinking to enhance the effectiveness of initiatives taken to address it.

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.

Whilst hate crime has been represented in the media and legislation for many years, particularly in the US, definitions of the term have been transient and changing. The Home Office issued a report in 2013 which demonstrated to both the public and law enforcement officials the most recent formal definition of ‘hate crime’ in the United Kingdom: “any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic” (Home Office, 2013). Reviewing statistics on hate crime in the United Kingdom, it becomes clear that there are two main official sources for data; the Crime Survey for England and Wales, and crime recorded by the police. Based on combined data from the CSEW 2011/12 and 2012/13, there was an estimated 278,000 hate crimes taken place on average each year (Home Office, 2013). However, when compared with the data shown by police recorded crime, there are huge disparities. Between 2012/13, only 42,236 incidents of hate crime were recorded by police, which accounts for approximately 1% of all recorded crime (Home Office, 2013).

On the heels of the recently concluded presidential election our nation has seen a staggering increase in hate crimes. The re emergence of oppressive practices, emboldened violence, and blatant bias against segments of the population threatens the fundamental constitutional premise that guarantees freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

University of Sydney, Law School. Hate Crime and Vilification Law: Developments and Directions. 28 August 2009, available at:

The simplest definition of what a hate crime is, is a crime committed against a victim due to his or her perceived role in a social group. Social groups can be defined by many factors such as sexual orientation, race, disability, religion, age, gender and many other factors. Within this essay I aim to evaluate the causes of hate crime and also to assess the impact of crime on victims and the strategies used for responding to hate crime. The types of hate crime I am going to be focusing on are race, sexual orientation and gender.

The Internet has made it is so easy for people to share there opinion on most every topic. This can be good at times but also can be extremely hurtful towards people especially if the goal in saying the hurtful words was to get a reaction. Hate Speech is an expression that is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing, and/or incites violence, hatred or discrimination. People are typically targeted because of the way they identify themselves ethnicity, religion, race, or national origin. In the case with hate speech in the United States many people do not want to put a regulation of what is said on the Internet because of the first Amendment that allows people the freedom of speech. There are other ways in which the United States can regulate the hate speech put on the Internet.

My overall reaction to the article written by Greenblatt, (2013), surrounding free speech was that of dismay because I would think that people would know what to say and what not to say. However, after reading the article, clearly with cyberspace it opens up several doors for hate speech, it opens door for people to just say anything without thought of being offensive or not, hateful or not, just because they can say it.

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.