ipl-logo

Should Freedom Of Speech Allow Individuals To Convey Hatred Towards A Group Of People

1485 Words6 Pages

Should freedom of speech allow individuals to convey hatred towards a group of people?
Freedom of speech has led to several social changes such as passing of the law of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States of America which made discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin unacceptable. Martin Luther King accessed his ability to speak freely about his beliefs which eventually eradicated the segregation of black people in the United States of America. This makes it clearly evident that freedom of speech has helped to establish equality, justice and freedom to a certain extent. However, the question I will be addressing in this presentation is ‘Should freedom of speech allow individuals to convey hatred …show more content…

However, derogatory and hate comments aimed at general groups of people remains unrestricted. Japan claims that ‘hate speech has never reached such a point as to warrant legal action’ [3]. Therefore, the government sees no reason as to why hate speech should be banned. A prime example of hate speech taking place in Japan was in 2015 when a 14-year-old Japanese girl called out “Get out of our country” and “kill, kill, kill Koreans” through a loudspeaker [4]. In this situation, I think that hate speech should have certain limits because a girl as young as 14 is making unnecessary comments. Nothing is being gained from using these derogatory comments except for emotional abuse that is completely ignored by the police as, according to them, it is “freedom of speech.” This event has highlighted the fact that children are influenced by the environment and people around them so why should the government not criminalise hate speech in Japan? This could eventually have a devastating effect on future generations because children are being taught that it is acceptable to oppose a certain group of people simply because it is a human right. It can also be argued that it is a human right to have dignity and the ability to be proud of what group you originate from without receiving hate.
The Constitution of India consists of hate speech laws that aim to prevent unjustness towards ethnic and religious communities. The law means that if a citizen is disrespectful "on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever" they can be punished. The laws specifically forbid anyone from outraging someone's "religious

Show More
Related
1091 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
1148 Words | 5 Pages

The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have.

Read More
885 Words | 4 Pages

Hate speech is defined as: speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. While the United States has the bill of rights and the freedom of expression/speech some states do have speech provisions such as California. There are laws that label speech as ‘limited classes’ which could cause one to be sued in a court of law and that would include: lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. All other speech is protected under your first amendment rights. Refer to a legal expert when in

Read More
563 Words | 3 Pages

It is important to maintain an environment for victims to feel safe in but I don’t think it’s right to be silenced to the point where even talking about it for educating and information purposes is looked down upon. Morally, it’s always important to not have your speech make anyone feel uncomfortable or unsafe but especially for educational purposes it’s important to not feel like you must walk on eggshells because someone might find it offensive. Kaminer uses another example in her essay where she was “quickly branded a racist” because she used “the n-word” while teaching Huckleberry

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

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.”

Read More
107 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
213 Words | 1 Pages

In Nat Hentoff essay, “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” he debates that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how it is taken by others. The one example that pops out to me is the student at Brown University, Dough Hann. He states many offensive things about several people and is expelled because it was not the first time something like this has happened. Freedom of speech is difficult subject that has many different views on it.

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1376 Words | 6 Pages

While yes, it would be difficult to enact a law limiting hateful speech, and such a plan would initially meet with heavy opposition, it is not impossible to protect citizens of our country from violence and the normalization of violent

Read More
1245 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
473 Words | 2 Pages

“53.1% percent of the hate speech crimes in the last 5 years have been violent and psychical.” (FBI National Press Office) This shows that more than half of the hate crimes have hurt people and might affect them for the rest of their lives. Hate speech is not okay. It hurts people beyond words and causes an unfair balance of power.

Read More
588 Words | 3 Pages

In this piece, Fiss addresses hate speech, and openly wonders how it should be handled by the courts. He discusses free speech and how difficult it is to balance the issues of freedom and equality. He acknowledges, “the difficultly, perhaps

Read More
285 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
1152 Words | 5 Pages

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 banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate 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 illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

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

More about Should Freedom Of Speech Allow Individuals To Convey Hatred Towards A Group Of People

Related Topics

Open Document