The Pros And Cons Of Hate Speech

In “Slurring Perspectives,” Elisabeth Camp begins with the argument that slurs are “powerful” and “insidious” precisely because they “present contents from a certain perspective, which is difficult to dislodge despite the fact that it is precisely what a nonbigoted hearer most wants to resist.” It is this reason why slurs are considered more offensive than “pure expressives” like “damn,” because they denote certain negative properties which are meant to contain harmful, “truth-conditionally robust properties” (Camp 330). Camp then goes on to say that slurs “conventionally signal a speaker’s allegiance to a derogating perspective on the group identified by the slur’s extension-determining core” (Camp 331). It is this derogating perspective

Which begs the question; what makes hate speech hateful? To support Gladwell's idea that there are certain requirements for

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.

A suiting definition for hate crimes is an adaptation from Gerstenfeld chapter 1: The Whys and Hows of Hate Crime Laws: crimes that are committed based on the race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation of the victim. Another definition of hate crimes that was considered was the Massachusetts legal definition of hate crimes that was discussed in Englander’s article Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime? Which included disability, color, and national origin on top of the protected groups that have been

There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.

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.

Freedom of Speech Across the United States, there is controversy over speech codes set in place on several college campuses for the reasons to protect student’s emotional stability and from speech they view as hateful. Speech codes do not only infringe upon our first amendment right, but are a dereliction of the Founding Father’s original purpose and intention for the country. Although the First Amendment guarantees our right to freedom of speech, there is a difference between freedom of speech and using your right to shut others down. Colleges across the US are infringing students’ rights by implementing speech codes.

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

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 Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech”, Lakoff claims that not everyone is able to understand hate speech because not everyone goes through it, or they don't find it a big deal because it doesn't happen to them. Someone might claim that they know that hate speech doesn't happen that often but, what is hate speech? Hate speech is to “promote violence” and it is “created by people who are a majority of the population; directed toward people who are a part of a minority population.” (bsu.edu). The First Amendment allows people to speak what they want, and express themselves.

Have you ever thought about getting beat up or even killed because of something you can’t help like your sexuality, race, religion, or gender? Many people in the world are getting injured or killed everyday. About one person every two hours of everyday gets attacked or killed because of who or what they are. How do hate crimes play a big role in society today? Well hate crimes affect the way people live in a very big way.

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.

We are now living in a time of discrimination. I asked two questions later, but I would like to add another question and I want to talk about it and I hope to answer it or give the answer to the people. When will discrimination end?. Many people have suffered and are still at risk of racism or racial discrimination, so Racism is a doctrine based on discrimination between people according to their sexual origin and color.

I am undecided for Freedom of Speech. There are plenty of good and bad qualities, and as much as there are pros there are also an equal amount of cons to freedom of speech. According to the first amendment, we the people have the freedom of speech which allows us the right to speak freely without censorship. Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech”. There are many pros and cons to freedom of speech, which is why I am only discussing three pros and cons, that I find that argues the opposite side, to the point it made me undecided on free speech.

Hate speech is not always grounded in reality and often driven by ignorance to the facts rather than experience and real prejudice. Some may argue that it is just harmless prejudice and our rights are threatened if we condemn it. SO is it the right to free speech or the right to insult? Racism, bigotry, political views and views about religions in fact, most views are learnt in the family home, then the education system, society, media and TV finish the indoctrination. The damage done to groups in society that are targeted is many faceted.