ipl-logo

Racist Speech As The Functional Equivalent Of Fighting Words

707 Words3 Pages

A speech code is any university policy that forbids the use of hateful or contemptuous expressions towards any social group, particularly those categorized based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc. In this essay, I will explain why such regulations are justifiable for the reasons that Charles R. Lawrence Ⅲ states in Racist Speech as the Functional Equivalent of Fighting Words. He argues that speech codes “[do] nothing more than prohibit intentional face-to-face insults”(pg 175), and that “racial insults are undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim.”(pg 175) A prime reason for many universities …show more content…

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.” (pg 176) When someone is a victim of …show more content…

The First Amendment aims to protect the right of freedom of religion and the right of freedom of expression of all United States citizens. However, Lawrence states “The Supreme Court has held that words that ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or intend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ are not constitutionally protected.” (Lawrence, pg 175) The First Amendment does not protect speech that maintains a sole purpose to inflict harm on other people. “Racial insults are undeserving for First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim” (Lawrence, pg 175) If someone is going to have a conversation with another person, than their freedom of speech should be protected, however; if someone had the sole intentions of causing harm or discomfort to the person that they were speaking with or at, then their freedom of speech may not be so protected. This should be of no concern to any persons on a college campus who are worrying about their right to freedom of speech or expression being neglected, considering that speech codes only work to prevent harm inflicted by hate speech to all students. I agree with Lawrence in that if we are going to end racism, we, as a society, have to take small steps in protecting minority

Show More
Related
215 Words | 1 Pages

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!”

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

The question presented is whether, a high school regulation, requiring that student athletes “stand in a respectful manner throughout the National Anthem during any sporting event in which their team is participating” violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court should rule for the defendant Jane Skinner, utilizing the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) and Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969). Which both implies that her actions were resulted from materially and substantially interfere with other student, and therefore justifies Jane Skinners actions. Facts: On October 4, 2017 Jane Skinner who is the principal of Alabama’s Hoover High School, informed both students and parents of a new sporting

Read More
752 Words | 4 Pages

In 1857 the court case of Dread Scott v. Stanford and in 1896 the case Plessy v. Ferguson were introduced into the Supreme Court. They showed people of color were not considered to be anything other than property; the whole majority had no regard for the feelings of another person. The notion of slavery was just coming to light in the United States. As time grew on, the slaves and former slaves were rightly becoming increasingly outraged. Through evaluating language of exclusion throughout both Dread Scott v. Stanford and Plessy v. Ferguson concurrently, anyone can recognize the effects of dehumanization negatively impacting members of the black community.

Read More
1610 Words | 7 Pages

The goal of hate speech is something that Waldron also discusses in chapters 3 and 4 of The Harm in Hate Speech. He explains that hate speech “amounts to assault upon the dignity of the person affected – “dignity,” in the sense of their basic social standing, the basis of their recognition as social equals and as bearers of human rights and constitutional entitlements” (Waldron, 59). The methodology behind hate speech is crucial to understanding how effective it truly

Read More
228 Words | 1 Pages

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).

Read More
424 Words | 2 Pages

A Misleading Attacks on Tigger Warnings, and Safe Spaces In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” by Sophie Downes, published in the New York Times. Downes argument in the letter sent out by Dean Ellison by the University of Chicago. The letter states that trigger warnings and safe spaces were an issue from deterring students from having free speech so therefore would not be supported by the University of Chicago campus anymore.

Read More
563 Words | 3 Pages

(Thane Rosenbaum page 165) And I believe this limit is crucial especially in places of diversity and higher learning such as college campuses. There is a difference between “trying to persuade and trying to injure.” (Rosenbaum page 166) So while many people believe that freedom of speech on a

Read More
1000 Words | 4 Pages

The question at hand is whether criminal law is an appropriate response to combat various forms of discrimination, particularly in the context of hate crime legislation. This debate revolves around the effectiveness of criminal law in addressing societal biases. Proponents argue that criminalizing hate-motivated behaviour is necessary to deter such offenses and protect vulnerable communities. Conversely, critics contend that relying solely on criminal law may not effectively address underlying societal issues and could potentially infringe upon freedom of expression. In this essay, I will explore both perspectives and argue for a balanced approach to addressing hate crimes.

Read More
190 Words | 1 Pages

The SCC emphasized on three main key points toward this case. The court ruled that the courts “must apply the hate speech prohibitions objectively”(case study). Thus, courts must determine whether a reasonable person with awareness of the context and situations would likely to consider the expression as hatred against the specific group or groups(case study). Another implication that the SCC ruled in the case is that the term “hatered” should be restricted and interpreted as extreme expressions of the emotion of “detestation” and “vilification”(Case study). This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects.

Read More
207 Words | 1 Pages

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

Read More
445 Words | 2 Pages

Legislators in California are reviewing the issue of hate speech with the possibility of a new bill. It is bringing about considerable discussion among lawyers. The Supreme Court held that some things by their very nature are considered outside the boundaries of what the First Amendment meant. Justice Potter Stewart’s remark is often quoted as defining hate speech, originally made about obscenity, that it is something we might not know exactly but “we know it when we see it.” California is looking at making the symbol of the noose a hate symbol, part of the designation of hate speech and a crime with a penalty under the State’s Penal Code.

Read More
905 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1216 Words | 5 Pages

With these points free speech is important to keep to protect the minority from the majority. E: This is because without free speech ideas that go against the status quo could be seen as unreasonable. E: This was shown in the 1960s with civil rights ending segregation, and without free speech, these ideas would have been seen as a disgrace and quickly shunned (Stanley).A: This shows how in the past free speech helped people with major civil rights cases. E: The other point is that by censoring free speech, it won 't stop hate speech at all and people will find other ways to spread the speech. E: This is because “Banning bigoted speech won’t end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions.

Read More
1013 Words | 5 Pages

Volokh states again in his article that “threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s ‘hate speech’; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone…” Threatening to injure or kill someone is illegal is a crime, but the additional racism and/or religious discrimination is just salt in the wound. Even so, the “fighting words” law is extremely specific-as said by Ken White for the Los Angeles Times, “it 's limited to in-person face-to-face insults directed at a particular person and likely to provoke a violent response from that person.” The specific exception to the First Amendment is very specific, and hate speech is still protected. These loopholes and laws give people more leeway in saying hateful things both in person and

Read More
1380 Words | 6 Pages

Speech codes shouldn’t even exist. People should have the right to speak however they want to. Even if there are going to be some cruel words but it’s better than going for a physical harm. “Hate speech” article is discussing about the First Amendment, language, and speech.

Read More

More about Racist Speech As The Functional Equivalent Of Fighting Words

Open Document