Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hate speech and freedom of speech
Freedom of speech and hate speech
Hate speech and freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hate speech and freedom of speech
Freedom of speech and hate speech
Hate speech and freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hate speech and freedom of speech
Intro: Intergenerational trauma is a harmful force that impacts individuals as well as entire communities and is passed on via lived events or memories. Pete, an Indigenous guy from a damaged household, demonstrates its impacts in The Outside Circle. Pete was born into a life of violence, drunkenness, and poverty, and his mother is unable to offer the attention he requires, so he turns to the streets and gangs for love and acceptance. Pete's father was a victim of the residential school system, which is a sort of cultural genocide, and his suffering was passed on to him.
Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.
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.”
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.
A further consideration that must be taken into account while evaluating this case is that of time, place, and manner restrictions. Such restrictions are a sort of measuring stick when it comes to these types of freedom of speech issues. If a group or individual does not comply with time, place, and manner restrictions, their actions are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, if these restrictions are adhered to, a party has the constitutional right to voice their viewpoints.
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.
Restricting the use of Racial Profiling Imagine going through Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and being stopped and treated unfairly just because of the color of your skin and the way you dress. Imagine being stopped at a red light for no particular reason besides “driving while black” or being Hispanic and getting asked to show the officer your “papers” or a green card. Racial profiling has always been prominent, but is very unjust and a violation of people’s civil rights. Racial profiling should be performed in certain medical circumstances, such as giving out precautions about a disease that’s predominant amongst a certain race, rather than knowingly acting on a whim or irrational fear.
First, there are those who argue that hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment, no matter the circumstance. Stakeholders for this position tend to include Conservative politicians, judges, and lawyers. This group stresses the idea that any individual rights that’s bestowed onto the people by the Constitution should never be tampered with. However, the opposing side are those who believe the First Amendment should not protect hate speech in any circumstances. Those involved in this side of the argument tend to be Democrats, Socialists, few Moderates, and college students.
There’s going to be different charges for every case. The charges are going to be different. Punishments for hate crimes are going to depend on the case and how bad the crime is. There is going to be different charges for every case, but it’s going to depend on what the person did and what evidence they find. Steven Sandstorm and Gary Eye, of Kansas City, Missouri were sentenced multiple life sentences because of the “racially- motivated murder of William L. McCay.”
The USA government crime data document seven types of antireligious hate crimes: anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Islamic, anti-other religious group, anti-atheism ,agnosticism and etc. In our analyses, the data for anti-multi religions were omitted because of the small number of cases and the difficulty of interpretation. Due to the limitations in the data set, information about the offenders was not available. Therefore, chi-square goodness of-fit tests were used to test whether there was a difference in the incidence of hate crimes committed toward the six religious groups after adjusting the case numbers by subgroup populations. The results revealed differences of this type that varied across the 13-year period.
From the speeches proclaimed in Nazi Germany, to the words spoken by Stalin, that were utilized for nothing more than power gain in the world stage, no hate speech was factually driven and meant to not create a detrimental impact on those it was personally
Before it is possible to find a solution to the problem, it is necessary to get to know the problem better. By definition, a hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. According to FBI data, 60% of hate crimes are motivated by racial bias, which are composed of mostly anti-black crimes, followed by anti-white crimes, then anti-hispanic crimes. 20% of hate crimes were against religious groups, with anti-semitic crimes being most common, with crimes against Muslims following close behind.
In Thomas More’s, Utopia, he discusses what he believes a society should look like. Many authors have responded to More in praise or disagreement. While they agree on some topics, there are several topics on which More and Luther have very different perspectives due to their differing beliefs and core values. Martin Luther would agree and disagree with More in regards to government and individual freedom, disagree with society and human nature, and disagree with religion.
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.