ipl-logo

Free Speech Vs Hate Speech Essay

426 Words2 Pages

The grey area can be seen between two different sectors: one of which is free speech and the other being unconstitutional with the question being what is the best way to deal with it. On one side, there are thinkers like James Bank, Sheffield Hallam University department of Law, who argued in “Regulating Hate Speech Online” that while the entire subject of hate speech is condemnable, it is nearly impossible to regulate.He believes this because, “The multi-jurisdictionality of the Internet has undermined states efforts to place geographical demarcations onto cyberspace … [as] European efforts to harmonise national laws have been undermined by the USA’s commitment to the First Amendment” (Banks 238). It is understandable that with the internet, no single group can assume responsibility or ownership over it, but then people still try to do so. An example that illustrates Bank’s point is the case Yahoo!, …show more content…

because the French organizations had no piece of evidence that proved intentional threat to others (Court of Appeals). Therefore, Yahoo! won is due to the Nazi memorabilia was considered illegal and free speech, depending on location. It creates a new problem in categorizing hate speech as with the global connectivity of the internet, online speech cannot be applied to a country 's laws. On the side of regulation is Laura Beth Nielsen, professor at Northwestern and at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in, “The Case of Restricting Free Speech” that free speech is often ruled upon balancing rights and dangers. This causes problems as it is illegal to panhandle in public yet a woman walking down the street can be verbally assaulted or any minority group can be verbally attacked and cannot fight back. Although, she makes her argument for speech made in person the same ideologies can be applied online as people verbally assaulted online suffer the same fate. This illustrates the problem with online speech as either side provides a

Show More
Related
1331 Words | 6 Pages

“By the mid nineties, the issue couldn’t exclude religious speakers from the list” The new look of religious cases allowed for people to go against the law of religious freedom. - pg 113 “But the stat denied a request heightened the differences between them.” The law of freedom of speech works for many terrible groups of people, making them question if they are actually doing the right thing. Support:

Read More
1203 Words | 5 Pages

This case clashes with freedom of speech, but it is also about freedom to

Read More
1483 Words | 6 Pages

Ryann k. England Mr. Dyer Ap Government October 9, 2016 The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedoms of speech, or of the press”.

Read More
530 Words | 3 Pages

Government is called to dictate internet content when one incites people to violence with his speech, however, it needs to be a true threat which includes immediacy and an actual intent. For instance, during the Vietnam War, a man expressed that “if he got drafted, his first bullet would be for President Johnson.” The Court detected no threat nor any real intent in the context, therefore, the government had no need to monitor what was being said. If the speech did not pose any likely threats but was regulated by the government, one’s freedom of

Read More
1204 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

People say things that others don’t agree with, or they say things that are disrespectful,but that doesn’t mean there’s a law against it, because everyone has a write to speech. ‘’Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. ’’ What this is trying to say is that you can say anything to anyone you want even if their powerful. But you can get in trouble if you say something threatening.

Read More
472 Words | 2 Pages

In January 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education adopted a resolution to enforce every student and teacher to a pledge of allegiances of the nation’s flag. If anyone refused to honor the flag he or she would be found “insubordinate” and expelled from school. The Barnett sisters were Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to pledge of allegiances while in public school. Their father would not allow them to salute the flag.

Read More
1376 Words | 6 Pages

There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.

Read More
362 Words | 2 Pages

On the other hand, the author tells us about a social platform named Reddit, where contains a genuine mixture of hate speech. For example, many of the Reddit threads like “/r/nazi, /r/killing women, /r/lynchingblacks or /r/assassinatingthepresident.” The authors think the key is not just about to remove the threads due to they are offensive. His argument is about these threads are all toward to the groups of people who have been intimidated and oppressed in the history. He thinks the positive speech doesn’t have any help for this kind of hate speech.

Read More
591 Words | 3 Pages

It also the individual that are doing these hate crimes and not understanding what they put on the internet. Each government system has individual rights. Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech, no government system can that take away. But when people tend to say a lot of racism things toward a person, that should be a hate crime. A lot of people don't take this into consideration because they don't see themselves as a racist person.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Hate Crime is a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” If an African American commits the same crime as an Caucasian it is more likely for the black person to be charged and arrested due to the racial issues we have today. There are many pros and cons towards the issue of racial crime, but hate crime is still a very difficult issue for our country to overcome. In order to overcome the issue of hate crime it would require changing legislation, public and police attitudes.

Read More
1434 Words | 6 Pages

The power of social media retaliation and judgement has become astonishing. In reality, I could intentionally post specific opinions that could land me on no-fly list and cause quite a large uproar from antagonists in a matter of hours. Alter makes an agreeable point by saying we all have the right to disagree with each other, but not dismantle their personage. Being publicly proven wrong and having the chance to defend yourself, or reflect and apologize is all that should be preferred. Americans are fortunate to live in a country of free speech; however, it has created a society that nearly inhibits itself from the right which is exactly not what America stands for.

Read More
878 Words | 4 Pages

In the recent news, everyone’s heard of the rise in hate crime. Most hate crime is “motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence,” (Dictionary.com). Hate crimes have spanned across the country and impact thousands of lives each year. The FBI started investigating hate crimes at the turn of the 20th century. The FBI define hate crime as, “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” (FBI).

Read More
905 Words | 4 Pages

The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues.

Read More
817 Words | 4 Pages

Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech is the freedom all people have, to express what they consider and express any opinions. It is an ability to express our opinions freely without being punished or censored. All people throughout the world are entitled and must have right to freedom of speech. However, how much do we know about freedom of speech: when did it occur? Does every countries have it?

Read More

More about Free Speech Vs Hate Speech Essay

Related Topics

Open Document