Keegstra appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before his trial, for an order to overturn the charge. The defense argued that the appeal should be allowed because sections 319(2) and 319(3) (a) of the Criminal Code are constitutional. Section 319(3) (a) of the code states that a person cannot be convicted of promoting hate if he or she establishes that the statement is true, guaranteed in section 11 of the Charter. However, Keegstra was unable to demonstrate the truth of the many prejudice statements he made to his students and many of Keegstra’s former students testified against him. Keegstra appealed his conviction and claimed the conviction was in violation of section 2(b).
The Dangers of Book Banning The practice of challenging or banning books has long been a strategy used to label reading materials as offensive on moral, religious, or political, grounds. Books are being banned for containing offensive materials. It is argued that people can become influenced by detrimental ideas. The First Amendment expresses that citizens have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Throughout United States History, there have been many situations that have limited civil rights. Some of these actions were the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the Executive Order 9066, and the passage of the USA Patriot Act. These actions were very controversial at the time and caused a lot of commotion between Americans and officials. Some people did not agree with them changing our civil liberties and were upset about it while others were fine with them changing our rights.
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.
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.
The argument for hate crime laws is supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) that hate crime laws punish conduct rather than thought.
Racial profiling has become a national issue starting in 2015 (“Racial”). Judging someone for their race has been a problem ever since a minority group has been noticed. Racial profiling has spread over all over the world. Racial profiling has been a problem through the years, if the human race can learn what racial profiling is, advantages of the profiling, and the disadvantages.
Is hate speech free speech and should it be protected under the First Amendment? Hate speech is speech that is used to verbally assault a single individual or a group of people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. While some countries such as France, Canada, Chile, Germany, etc. have passed laws in an attempt to combat or minimize hate speech, the United States guarantees full protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, which was ratified in 1789 and adopted in 1791, essentially forbids Congress to create any laws curtailing the freedom of speech, freedom of press, or the right of citizens to peaceably assemble and seek assistance from the Government for a redress of grievances. Since the adoption of the First Amendment, Americans have consciously, continuously, and contentedly exercised their right.
The culture of America to act in violence when someone disagrees with someone, in my opinion, will never result in progress or solving said disagreement. Screaming at someone and disrespecting someone will not result in them realizing they are wrong, but conversation or peaceful protest has the potential to alter one’s ideas. An idea that struck me, instead of having written code about prohibiting hate speech, why not construct a code that requires a certain percentage of students to sign a petition avoiding that person from speaking on campus. At the same time, to counter that, if an X percentage amount of people sign something requesting for this person to speak at their campus then that person will be allowed and these people are expected
When analyzing the motion supported by the government, it is inherent that we understand the ramifications it would bring upon the state. With “works” being defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as, “something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort”, we can see that not only would it cause a gross violation of property rights, and pit cultures against each other, but it would also allow for a rampant use of censorship by the government. First off however we need to understand how property rights would be infringed upon. Underneath this motion we would ultimately see a world in which if an artist did not want to relinquish their work to the government, then the government could forcefully take away
For a professor go to a strip club and pays to watch women is not illegal, however, I believe it is unethical for him to attend. A professor should be someone whom we can look up to and be seen as a role model to other students. If he really has passion for his career, I should say he should not even be thinking about paying to watch women on his free time. If the student finds out that is what he do on his free time then he would be seen differently by his students. I know the teachers and professor are human beings too, but it is their sole duty to set a good example to his students.
We are now living in a time of discrimination. I asked two questions later, but I would like to add another question and I want to talk about it and I hope to answer it or give the answer to the people. When will discrimination end?. Many people have suffered and are still at risk of racism or racial discrimination, so Racism is a doctrine based on discrimination between people according to their sexual origin and color.
Racism is a problem that has not been addressed as properly as it can or should be. Racism laws have protected many U.S citizens and continue to today but many incidents of racism go by unnoticed. Racism laws should be more strictly enforced because incidences of racism are on the rise, the first amendment of the constitution protects freedom of speech and religion, and it would prevent innocent people from being suspected of crimes based on their religion/race. Racism laws should be more strictly enforced because incidences of racism are on the rise. An example, of my first reason that racism has gone way too far is when Republican Candidate Donald Trump requested that all muslim immigration/travel to the U.S be banned
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.
