In the story “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” by Nat Hentoff was a very good argumentative passage. Hentoff argues that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how offensive it is interpreted by others. Dough Hann abused his freedom of speech when he blurted out “Fuck you niggers” to black students at Brown University. A student asked Hann to stop screaming and Hann yelled “What are you a faggot?” Next, Hann noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm and asked “What are you a Jew?” and shouted, “Fucking Jew!”
Upon being imprisoned for marching Dr Martin Luther King wrote a letter to the fellow clergymen of Birmingham, addressing his reasons as to why he committed his “crime”, This letter was widely known as “The Letter of Birmingham”. This letter was very influential and paramount to the cause of civil rights as it spurred up future events that would play essential roles in ending racial segregation in America. Throughout his whole letter, King used Ethos, logos, and pathos to firmly get his message across while adding rhetorical devices such as repetition, metaphors, and biblical references.
Charles R. Lawrence III is a professor at Georgetown University that publicized an article inside “The Chronicle of Higher Education” and later on in the “Duke Law Journal” which was headlined “On Racist Speech”. Ever since Charles Lawrence was young he was quite the anarchist on the matter of the first amendment protecting racial slurs. He encourages University’s to stand up and reprimand such absurd speech with a reinforced approach without completely throwing out the first amendments rights. Charles Lawrence uses Brown v. the board of education as an example, the discrimination is causing psychological effects that are turning an educational environment into an environment of destruction. As he then goes on to explain that if racial speech
He talks about unjust lynching and fair speech for both sides. He said, “Take the evidence, sift it out and find the truths and untruths and render your verdict... you are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black--you are not trying that
Charles R. Lawrence starts off his essay, On Racist Speech, by giving the readers a flash black of when he was in high school and how he was threatened with suspension for his refusal to participate in a civil defense drill. He also has lets the readers know that he has been a conspicuous consumer of his First Amendment liberties. Next, Lawrence brings up the issue of how there has been a resurgence in racial violence and how he cannot believe that no one has been listening to the real victims. He even mentions that blacks and other traditionally subjugated and excluded groups are the ones who are being mistreated. Lawrence uses the example of Brown versus the Board of Education to help further support his idea of racist speech.
According to Charles Lawrence in his article “On Racist Speech,” the First Amendment should not be all inclusive, especially in the case of hate speech (27-30). The first argument Lawrence brings up is the court case Brown vs. Board of education, which stated that separate but equal was unconstitutional. Lawrence sees the case in a different way than most, saying that idea of separate but equal was a violation of speech. The message that black school children received was that they were “unfit to go to school with white children” (28). Lawrence believes today we still fight these harmful messages, especially places such as college campuses where some students refuse to leave their dorm rooms to avoid these damaging comments (27-28).
Charles Lawrence in his racist speech tries to convince that racist speech needs to be regulated. He argues that hate speech is intolerable in the United States because it represents discrimination which Everyone defines hate speech differently. I define hate speech as anything that incites aggression regarding one person or a group of people. Now a day’s people uses free speech as a defense for saying anything but discriminating someone is not free speech.
In this article, "Why Hate Speech is Not Free Speech", George Lakoff explains his view on how hate speech should not be considered as free speech. Being an astounding American cognitive and linguistic philosopher, Lakoff asserts many reasoning claims through the power of language. Lakoff's intended audience would have to be other liberals, philosophers, or linguistic professors who also look deeper into the effects of how language can influence a person. Because this was written in September 8th, 2017, this topic continues to be relevant to this day. Because this article argues against my stance, I position it as an opponent.
Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. There are many ideas expressed in times where it would be inappropriate or unnecessary to use one’s freedom of speech. These circumstances would be where something is inappropriate or misidentified as hate speech. There are many situations where someone may want to say something, yet there are times where some things should not be said.
Hate speech includes, but is not limited to, gesture, conduct, writing, or verbal communication that might encourage discriminatory behavior to a protected individual or group of individuals. Many universities are committed to creating an atmosphere of equal opportunity that harbors talent, creativity and ingenuity. Speech codes are not only justifiable, but are also essential to campuses because they do not allow the use of hate speech. One who is for the use of speech codes on campuses may argue alongside Lawrence in saying that it is unacceptable to use hate speech in any scenario or environment because it suppresses the voices of minorities. Lawrence presents the idea that “the subordinate victims of fighting words are silenced by their relatively powerless position in society.”
Organizing a speech in a way that advances the argument can help it in various ways, even the 44th President of the United States, President Obama does this. On July 16th, 2009, the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, President Obama delivered his “Remarks to the NAACP” speech. In this speech he highlighted various important topics. One of these many topics was how to promote equality. Since President Obama clearly and accurately organized his speech in a way that advances his argument, he was able to effectively talk about promoting equality through family, education, and our communities.
The speaker might be racist or have terrible views, to counter that you can protest and use your own first amendment right and voice your opinion non violently. The other side might say that the first amendment doesn't cover these racists, but it was ruled the first amendment covers everything. The supreme court ruled that the first amendment still protects “hate speech” and things like it,“The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate”(Volokh). This proves that no matter how racist or against views it is they still have the right to express their opinions.
Ethical Controversy of Stem Cell Research Twenty-two people die each day waiting for an organ transplant (“Organ Procurement”). Those twenty-two people waiting for an organ do not realize there is another way. Stem cells are a specialized cell. They have the ability to divide and make entire organs or body parts. There are two types of stem cells -- embryonic and adult.
The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate
