Charles Arguments Against Racist Speech Rules

I think Charles is weighing down the benefits and drawbacks of racist speech regulations. On the one hand, there’s the blacks who are assaulted by these speeches. On the other hand, there’s the freedom of speech supported by the First Amendment. He’s trying to show both sides of the argument and their flaws and remind us the danger of deciding recklessly whether racist speeches should be tolerated or not. At first, Charles shows that he himself is a supporter of freedom of speech. However, he pointed out that the debate has been framed as if the freedom of speech conflicts against the elimination of racism. He blames the civil libertarians because they argue against racism yet ignoring its victim’s voices. Personally, I think the blame lies with us all, not just the civil libertarians, that the victim remains ignored.

If racism are to be eliminated, then we need to eliminate the signs that show that blacks are inferior to whites. Usually, even racist speeches are protected by the First Amendment. However, Charles argued that the First Amendment’s purpose is to generate more speeches in our society. Racist speeches are often used as a blow to the victim, so that the victims become silent and submissive. Therefore, racist speeches should not be protected by the First Amendment. However, Charles also addresses the difficulty of speech regulation. Although people often recognize the pain that minority groups suffer due to racist speeches, it will be impossible to suppress racist speeches without suppressing other kinds of speeches that would’ve benefited society. There’s a risk that suppressing racist speeches might be used to dominate free speeches instead. Therefore, it is imperative that we fully understand the real harm caused by racial speech and know that this harm is far from