Hate Speech: The Definition Of Free Speech

Hate is everywhere! Everywhere you turn there will always be people who hate you or your ideas. Hate surrounds everyone in digital forms and physical forms. Online Bullies and real-life homophobes are everywhere. They both share one thing in common: the first amendment. 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 controlling free speech.

There are many different perspectives on the issue of limiting free 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

He defines hate speech in a variety of terms. He says that it is “hate-filled” and “provokes a dangerous environment.” Zafar says hate speech “engenders prejudice” and use the example of the holocaust support how “free speech”, which was actually hate speech, helped give rise to one of the “ugliest moments in human history.” Additionally, Zafar adds that the “divisive speech” contributed to the persecution of many ethnic communities. Zafar says that hate speech is an “ insult” to the concept of the free speech. He relates "hate speech" to the punishment and destruction of communities and the systematic killing of innocent people. His definition is more specific and related to how hate speech affected people. While interviewing fellow classmates about what they define as hate speech there were many similar definitions. Many agreed that hate speech is anything that attacks someone based on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Some said that hate speech makes the world a scary place because people are so harsh. This proved to support Zafar’s notion that hate speech promotes an unsafe place. No one said that there was no such thing as hate speech. Everyone had a clear definition in mind, which called into question Reynolds’s claim regarding the idea that hate speech did not

He says that the government should not be needing to put restrictions on the first amendment. People should know to not be ignorant without there being a law. He uses real-world examples to show that he is against limiting free speech. Zafar discusses the Pastor McConnell case and believes that the pastor should not have been arrested for his speeches. Zafar acknowledges the defamatory things McConnell said about Muslims and affirms that he held the right to say those things. He states that the pastor did not break the rules of the first amendment. According to Zafar, the pastor should not have to face any legal discipline. By relating his opinion to the McConnell case it is very easy to see that Zafar is against limiting free speech. ***maybe add interview