More handpicked essays just for you.
The debate on hate speech pros and cons
Does freedom of speech justify hate speech and to what extent? essay
The case for restricting hate speech essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think
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.
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)
I will first discuss how hate speech causes harm. Then, I shall explain how hate speech should be barred in specific spaces in order to protect the majority. Next, I will explain how college campuses should operate as safe spaces where hate speech is regulated and allowed only in cases meant to provide students with a learning opportunity. Following this, I will examine Northeastern University’s policy on hate speech and compare it to my proposition. Finally, I will present the opposing perspective that believes hate speech should be allowed and encouraged on college campuses in order to present students with new viewpoints and help them grow as intellectual
Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true. There is no hate speech exception to First Amendment. There are some kind of words which are not protected especially the fighting or insulting words or speech in which a person threatens to commit a crime that would result in death, serious injury, or damage is not protected by the First Amendment, instead First Amendment gives the right to fight against injustice, inequality and unfairness. For example Black Lives Matter movement, this movement has every right to express their feelings. The ways they are protesting are protected under the First Amendment.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines a hate crime as, "a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity." Hate itself is not a crime-and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties" (FBI). When reading this definition, it is clear to understand why so many are against hate crimes. Hate crimes are a direct stab, whether that be literally or metaphorical, at a group of human beings.
I was born to the name of Glafirpul, the son of two farmers. My parents were mere peasants who have never seen war, and I was expected to amount to nothing more than that - a commoner, working my life in the farms. For better or worse, my life didn’t end up that way. When I was born, the Dwarves and the Greenskins had been warring for over fifteen years, with no victor in sight. We lived close enough to the center of the Mountain Kingdoms to be spared the carnage and bloodshed of the war… for a while.
Hatred of The First Amendment Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.(cite)" As Americans, we’ve been known to heavily value our “Liberty and Justice for All,” but is it really true to us? Freedom of speech is a 1st Amendment right, with that comes all different types of free speech. One of these types of speech is hate speech. The definition of hate speech is: “Speech that attack a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.(cite)” Why is the attack of a person verbally, due to a difference someone doesn’t agree with, a constitutional right?
Hate crime What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is an underlying motivation based on the victim’s group membership. There has been much debate over the constitutionality of hate crime laws and which groups (if any) should be protected by such legislation. Those against hate crime laws argue that it is a violation of First Amendment protections of free, association, and freedom of thought. The Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of thought is implied by the First Amendment in R.A.V. v. St. Paul which those against hate crime laws argue makes such laws unconstitutional.
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.
Crimes committed against those who do no wrong, prejudices such as the terrors of burnings, lynchings, and decapitation are crimes of hate; the crimes that are motivated only by way of race, sexual orientation, disability, and many other stereotypes are those that are unforgivable. They serve no purpose but to humiliate, injure, and threaten. These crimes are the bane of society, but the role of authorities on matters of hate crimes has become blurred in a world of increasing violence of prejudice. Free speech and unprotected hate speech have come under review, and still violence increases. All of these statements beg the question: should the government more actively oppose hate speech?
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
The controversy surrounding hate speech is immense. In turn, the question of whether hate speech should be a criminal offence, or if it imposes on freedom of speech is something that is often debated upon. On one side, you have people stating that they should be able to express whatever they wish, and on the other people argue that there needs to be restrictions. Hate speech is something that can cause significant harm to groups and individuals. For this reason, hate speech needs to be a criminal offence to ensure that no individual and/or group is harmed.
There needs to be a fine line between what is considered hate speech and what isn’t. For that, the question “is it inciting violence?” must be asked. True threats that involve the encouragement of violence wouldn’t be considered hate speech, though, but hate crime, mainly because they involve acts of hostility towards a specific type of people. If the intent of actively harming another person is present, then it must be considered a hate crime. If it is not, then the person has the right to express that opinion.
