The freedom of speech is important because it gives us the ability to express our thoughts and opinions. (Cite) Magazine editor, Rachael Jolley said, “ Free speech has always been important throughout history because it had been used to fight for change. When we talk about rights today they would not have been achieved without free speech. Think about a time from the past-women not being able to vote, or the terrible working conditions in the mines- free speech is important as it has helped change these things.” Most people take the freedom of speech for granted because they do not realize how privileged we are to have
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
¶2. One type of protected free speech that is especially controversial is hate speech. ¶3. Hate speech is not permitted if it is threatening. ¶4.
Currently, the United State’s criterion on Speech includes, “obscenity, fraud, child pornography, harassment, incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising, copyright or patent rights” (Gaudefroy 3). However, speech involving discriminatory words or racial intentions are protected by the law. To avoid instances that degrade the minority group, stricter rules need to be enforced on the delicate topic. Restrictions on hate speech should include usage of “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and conspiracy-laden language” (Gaudefroy 3). Efforts to restrict these types of beliefs would create a more safe and equal society for all individuals.
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.”
The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.
What distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime is motive. In order for a crime to be considered a hate crime, it must be motivated by the group membership of the victim. Critics of hate crime laws have argued that they are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections of free speech, association, and freedom of thought. Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) in which freedom of thought was determined to be implied by the First Amendment.
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.
We now need to bring back the topic of free speech to discuss how our knowledge of our everyday aspects of our lives including healthcare and education and how it can be put at risk at the expense of censoring topics for our protection. How literal and absolute should our adherence to the First Amendment be? Although some speech is hateful and harmful, we should maintain an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment because it encourages productive debate, and censorship is a slippery slope. The first reason the First Amendment should maintain an absolute interpretation is for the fact that it encourages productive debate.
As Kandinsky served in the Bauhau art and design school in 1922, he taught students Germany about form and color theory, stating that, "absolute green is the most peaceful color there is: it does not move in any direction, has no overtone of joy or sorrow or passion, demands nothing, calls out to no one" (Kandinsky, Norton Simon Foundation). Wassily Kandinsky ussian-born painter, became one of the leaders of the avant- garde art and is concidered the first modern artist to create pure abstraction in the early 20th century. Wassily Kandinsky was born on December 4, 1866 in Moscow to his musical parents Lidia Ticheeva and Vasily Silvenstrovich Kandinsky, who was a tea merchant. At the age of five, his parents divorced and he moved in with his aunt to Odessa where he learned to play the cello, and piano as well as to paint. Though he had the desire to become an artist, he followed his family 's wishes and became a lawer from the University of Moscow in 1886.
Although hate speech is bigoted, hate-mongering, and can potentially lead to hate crimes, it should still be considered free speech. If citizens of the United States are not allowed to be verbal about their beliefs, whether or not they are offensive and hateful, then there is no use in allowing free speech. Placing limitations on free speech contradicts the First Amendment, therefore making it inaccurate and useless.
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
Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.
Hello, It is quite comical how we have gotten to the point of which we are now censoring what we can and cannot wear. It is extremely ludacris. The reason I find it both comical and ludacris is because freedom of expression is a human right. The reason I wear the hat is that I am in support of a Conservative President. I support his Pro-Life stance, his call to a return of Traditional values, his defense of the West, his speech on why we must protect Western Values and our Judeo-Christian heritage, his Muslim ban and his support for Israel.
I am undecided for Freedom of Speech. There are plenty of good and bad qualities, and as much as there are pros there are also an equal amount of cons to freedom of speech. According to the first amendment, we the people have the freedom of speech which allows us the right to speak freely without censorship. Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech”. There are many pros and cons to freedom of speech, which is why I am only discussing three pros and cons, that I find that argues the opposite side, to the point it made me undecided on free speech.
