Why Should Racial Slurs Be Illegal

Slurs of racism to suggest that one group is superior will not be mentioned, but the undermining of other groups through various systemic practices of standards by visual/verbal rhetoric will be discussed.

The difference between offensive words and oppressive slurs are there intent and impact they have on the recipient. Many words can be offensive in today 's world, and as the line between being politically correct and free speech becomes muddled, it’s easy for the words that comes out of our mouths to be hurtful. For example, calling someone “stupid” today would be

White people have been criticized for using the word nigger by black people, because when a white person says it, they claim it is racist or that they are not allowed to say nigga because they are white. They say that black people can use it because they have a right too, because of their people being oppressed in the past. Today we have black people, white people and all other variety’s of races calling their friend’s who are not black, a “nigga” in a way that claims them to be a close friend of some sorts. Most of the time we see black people call other black people niggas and we aren’t

cultural, or bias slurs should be changed so that racial discrimination can be stopped and everyone can

Native Americans are also being discriminated also. There are many ways to discriminate people. Name calling is one, another is drawing, and another is acting. Those two, drawing and acting are not usually the offense. Its usually in the form of name calling. (Whitlock) There’s a lot of terms you can use to be racist. A lot of sick people have came up with names to call different races. Names so bad that they can not be used in this paper. Racism is very wrong. People are all equal no matter what color they are. No one should be laughed at or tortured or even made fun of for being a different color. God made everyone the same. The only differences are color, actions, looks, and personality. Everyone is a beautiful creation

Racist terms can be used positively, but only depending on the preference of the person being addressed. The society that we live in today opposes the use of racist language, but it can be used positively with other people. In her essay “The Meaning of a Word,” Gloria Naylor wants the audience to understand her past experience with the word “nigger.” According to Naylor, the racist term can impact anybody negatively. However, I believe such languages can bring out unity, diversity, and a feeling of acknowledgment. Different races also use racist terms in a funny and friendly way. The common word “nigga” is used almost everywhere in this way. Similarly, Christine Leong’s essay “Being a Chink” discusses how racist terms like “chink” are used in a friendly and compassionate way. From the two essays, I favor Leong’s essay because she states how racist terms can be used as a trend of assimilating everyone together. At the end of the day, racist terms can express unity and diversity.

In the name of free speech, hate speech should not be tolerated. Hate speech has devastating effects on the people and communities it is targeted at. Left unchecked hate speech can lead to harmful and violent effects. Over the past few years, the effects of hate speech used on women, homosexuals, ethnic groups and religious minorities have become more and more apparent. Hate speech can be very divisive in many of the situations it is used, depending on who interprets the expression can vary how people react, due to hate speech, not being easy defend when it does not hurt that certain person or community. If left uncheck hate speech can develop into harmful narratives that remain. While hate speech is not against the law, some have begun

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

A sensitive, controversial topic today regarding slurs is the conversation of “reclaiming slurs”. This idea

We have all heard the phrase “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” However, depending on how words are used, and the opinions associated with them, they can indeed be very hurtful. Gloria Naylor writes about this in her article “Mommy, What Does ‘Nigger’ Mean?” She states “words themselves are innocuous; it is the consensus that gives them true power” (Naylor 481). She explains that African Americans’ use of nigger does not in anyway invite Caucasians to use it. Naylor is accurate when she writes that the word ‘nigger’ would not be offensive had it not been for the thoughts, and sometimes, action others associate with it.

A few college campuses across America have attempted to craft speech code regulations that restrict speech based on a fighting words approach, meaning they’ve tried to make hate speech on campuses punishable by applying the fighting words law into the college campus setting. As Timothy Shiell says in Campus Hate Speech on Trial they base this argument on three points: “1. The First Amendment does not protect fighting words. 2. Some campus hate speech constitutes fighting words. Thus 3. Campus hate speech codes punishing and preventing fighting words do not violate the First Amendment.” Two of the universities that have used this logic to create speech restrictions include the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. While both speech codes have been struck down in court, these two codes were constructed with past cases and failed codes in mind, so that they’ve indisputably come the closest to being codes that the Supreme Court deems constitutional. Despite the ruling that these codes are unconstitutional, many advocates think that flaws were not in the speech codes, but rather, in the court’s decision.

In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist rally turned violent, the argument on whether or not hate speech should be banned has become increasingly more relevant. Those supporting the ban argue that this kind of speech eventually creates a society that doesn’t accept the affected minorities as equals, and can shame them into silence. On the other side, people argue this would infringe upon free speech rights. In Glenn Greenwald’s article, “In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Being used to Silence Left Wing Beliefs,” he addresses how this ban might affect left-wing activism, and the fallacies in the arguments supporting the ban. Greenwald mainly relies on logos to back up his thesis; that a hate speech ban would not work in America. The problem he faces with this as his argument is that it makes the assumption that these same issues would arise in America. Other than a brief mention of his time as a lawyer to back up one talking point, there is very little ethos. While his tone throughout the article feels very neutral and informative, he makes poor use of logos and ethos, leading to an ineffective argument.

Racism can occur in different ways, the most common is the use of offensive words, for example “nigger boy” to refer to the color of the skin in a derogatory and rude way. “Don’t you listen to that Quaker Abolitionist and that free nigger boy," he cries out as he whips the men in chains."They got evil in their words and destruction in their

Envision ambulating down the street and then out of the blue someone shouts obscenities predicated on the way people look or because of what they affiliate with. Incidents involving animosity happen everyday, and most are looked at as daily occurrences. With the current state of hate speech laws, there is nothing that could be done to put culpability on the instigator. Hate has a strong connection to United States history. Slaves were a result of being hateful to those who were different, and Jim Crow laws were also a consequence of this hatred. As much time has passed since then, America has become more progressive, although there are still people who are hateful of others for they way they are. Hate speech laws are necessary in the United States and should be passed because passing them would create and foster a more tolerant society, help to decrease the negative risk associated with them, and prevent violent acts of hate which tend to be preceded by hate speech.

What do the words Cracker, Kike, Nigger, Jap, Chinc, Faggot, Queer, Dike and Spic all have in common? They are all derogatory remarks that humans call one another on a daily basis. Why can people use these terms and not have to worry about receiving any punishment or any ridicule? The reason is because of the First Amendment right of free speech. The first amendment gives people the right to basically say anything that comes to mind whether it is something nice or something like a derogatory remark. The first amendment is good and freedom of speech has its advantages like most things, but however, it also has its disadvantages. The disadvantages are that people can say words that are extremely hurtful