ipl-logo

Ssd2 Unit 2 Section 2

456 Words2 Pages

Over and above the limitations imposed by S16(2) of the Constitution, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) ensures the ‘prevention, prohibition and elimination of unfair discrimination, hate speech and harassment’. Section 10 of the Act provides that no person may communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be understood to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, be harmful or to incite harm, or promote or propagate hatred. PEPUDA sufficiently prohibits hate speech in that nobody may ‘disseminate or broadcast any information’ or ‘publish or display any advertisement or notice’ that may be reasonably understood as a clear …show more content…

It is already a crime under our common law to impair someone’s dignity through speech by being convicted or charged with an offence called crimen injuria. Similarly, under our common law, defamation is the unlawful and intentional publication of matter that impairs another person’s reputation.
In ANC v Sparrow the court included an order after finding the defendant liable for damages that “the clerk of the Equality Court is directed to submit this matter in its entirety to the Director of Public Prosecutions KwaZulu-Natal for consideration regarding the institution of criminal proceedings, either in terms of the common law or relevant legislation” . This approach by the court, provides guidane to the fact that hate speech is already criminalised in the form of crimen injuria.
Furthermore, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), can investigate a “hate speech” incident following a complaint laid with the Commission. Alternatively, they can do so on their own accord. Matters adjudicated by the SAHRC may result in further court action, should the Commission decide that this is

Show More
Related
213 Words | 1 Pages

Between the January 2002 and January 2004 the defendant, Collins, made a series of telephone calls and voice recordings on an answering machine to members of his office. Within these telephone calls, and answering machine recordings the defendant used a number of pejorative racist phrases, such as; “wogs”, “pakis”, “black bastards” and “niggers”. The terms were not heard by members of ethnic minorities, but some of those who received the calls and heard the messages described themselves as “shocked”, “alarmed” or “depressed” by the defendants language. Following this, a formal complaint was made, charges were pressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defendant was tried for sending, by means of a public telecommunications system,

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
948 Words | 4 Pages

This concept is also true with the symbolic speech clause and commercial speech clause. The government will protect the right to speech to advertisements and the citizens to a certain degree. Slander, libel, Defamation of character, hate speeches, and actual malice will not be tolerated. These include degrading someone as a person, their race, or religion. As soon as the public’s safety is a risk, the Clear and Present Test takes effect.

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
294 Words | 2 Pages

In the article “Sorry, College Kids, There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech” by The Federalist. The author John Daniel Davidson believes there is so no such thing as hate speech unless it is a crime. I agree with the author, you can say what you want unless it causes a riot or a crime is committed. [1]The case, which involved a white teenager burning a cross made from taped-together broken chair legs in the front yard of a black family that lived across the street, went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case I believe if no one was hurt and there wasn’t any damage to the property the white teenager shouldn’t be convicted.

Read More
555 Words | 3 Pages

While the freedom of speech is protected under the constitution, there are several types of speech that are restricted by the government. In general, if the speech is found to cause harm or threaten the safety of the public, it is restricted. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.” (Volokh, E., 2015). There are restrictions placed on fighting words, defamation, threats, and false statements of

Read More
912 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

At the point when considering Jazz, a great many people think about 1920 's New Orleans and the jazz clubs of New York and Chicago. Be that as it may, to comprehend the effect this music had on the world after WWI we need to take a gander at Paris and the blooming of American music in this post war city. America brought forth jazz, yet Paris was the first to hail it as a workmanship. Amid World War 1, isolated troops of dark fighters walked their energetic music through 2,000 miles of modest ranch towns and enormous show lobbies crosswise over France. Their leader was Lt. James Reese Europe, a well-respected New York bandleader.

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
265 Words | 2 Pages

Hate speech—words or symbols targeted at a particular group or person that attack or intimidate them based upon sex, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender—has recently become extremely controversial, especially in regards to college campuses. Although merely visual or verbal behaviors, hate speech can indirectly and directly cause physical and psychological harms. Philosophers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic delve into the negative impact of hate speech in their essay “Words That Wound”, detailing exactly how supposed expressions of freedom of speech can detrimentally impact its victims. Such dire consequences thus call for targeted and threating speech to be banned in certain spaces in order to sustain a safe environment for the majority of people.

Read More
618 Words | 3 Pages

-Hate crimes, are not justifiable the reason why is because they’re, ‘bias.’ The definition of a ‘Hate Crime’ on page 604 is defined as “a bias related crime, committed against an individual that is motivated by bias regarding race, color, religion, disability, and sexual orientation.” Committing a crime just because of the color, sexuality, religion, or disability of a person isn’t justifiable. The reason why it’s not justifiable is because, the person committing the hate crime wouldn’t want someone else, to commit such an act towards themself.

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
473 Words | 2 Pages

Hate speech needs to be

Read More
179 Words | 1 Pages

The House of Lords decided to accept the appeal from the Director to decide whether or not the terms used by Collins were in fact “grossly offensive”. Lord Carswell concluded that “not every transmission of grossly offensive language is punishable, but only messages which, in their particular circumstances and context, are to be regarded in the wider society which the justices represent as ‘grossly offensive’.” This means that even though someone has used language that is grossly offensive, it still may not be enough to prosecute. The message depends on the context and circumstance in which they are said.

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

More about Ssd2 Unit 2 Section 2

Related Topics

Open Document