Hate Speech Bans

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.

The 1st amendment is a God-given right and the fact remains that there will be idiots in a world that hands a microphone to the very first controversial person because a world that distorts the view of political, religious, and social matters to persuade a country to feel a certain way toward an issue deemed pivotal towards keeping the status quo of keeping a racial superiority while keeping a suspicious hint of racial tension. Just because a church exercises the right to free speech people try to add in emotions to an emotionless issue. If you added emotions into everything people would start getting arrested for calling someone ugly or annoying. The world and people as a whole need to learn to grow a set and learn how to not get offended

Matthew Rabadi Civil Liberties and Multiculturalism Professor Szobonya 10/24/95 First Amendment Research Paper: America Vs. North Korea There are many societal problems in todays world. These problems can range from poverty, crime, to even human right violations. The United States serves as a model country, where many of these problems are not seen or handled with quality efforts.

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.

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.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Some people in today’s time would argue the first amendment is one of the most important listed in the Bill of Rights. Many forms of speech are protected by the first amendment that one wouldn’t think would be such as flag burning and “adult videos”. Over the years there have been many different court cases that have debated and fought the forms of speech that are protected. Many people in society treat speech differently and this is given in the United States because there are such diverse groups throughout the nation.

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.”

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

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.

The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues.

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 answer to the question, “Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin ?” is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or “hateful” are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus

We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate

As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other = = =