The Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech Essay Example
The Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech Essay Example

The Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
Topics:
  • Pages: 7 (1838 words)
  • Published: July 1, 2022
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Most Americans would like to think that the United States is a place open to diversity with room for everyone. The fact is, hate is a huge block to this vision, and the atrocities of Mathew Shepard and James Byrd grow by the day increasing the search for a remedy. We used to be able to ignore people who spoke of hate because they wore white hoods and had meetings in secluded places.

Now, people like Eminen and John Rocker can speak hate over the television, radio, and especially the Internet (Goldstein, 2000). This new form of hate speech has caused much debate and controversy because every where a person looks some form of hate is being spoken. Some institutions have tried to curb hate speech by instituting speech codes, which try to eliminate hate speech. However, these speech codes have been confronted by much

...

debate. Whether or not people need to be censored is a question asked by many in the debate between The First Amendment, which guarantees Civil liberties, and The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees Civil rights.

Civil rights vs. Civil liberties. In short, is hate speech protected under the rights and liberties of the constitution. Hate Speech is a very troubling matter for those who believe in the right to Free Speech and expression. They want to stop the hate, but at the same time, maintain the constitution.

Many have tried to define hate speech as that which offends, threatens, or insults groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or a number of other traits (McMasters, 1999). However, what might be easy to define for scholarly or general discourse woul

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

simply not be adequate enough to put into law. McMasters (1999), gives several reasons why hate speech is so hard to define. First, "is the definition in terms of what the speech reflects, such as bigotry, bias, prejudice, anger, or fear? Or is it a matter of what the speech conveys: intimidation, vilification, subjugation, and eradication?" McMasters asks the question if it matters whether the speech occurs face to face, online, in a book, on the television, in the lyrics of music, in the classroom, and even in a political campaign? Can we simply define hate speech as a list of words or does the context count? McMasters (1999) final question on trying to define hate speech really brings out the whole debate, because it asks the question of, "Is hate speech determined by the intent of the speaker, or the reaction of the audience." In order to get a grasp on hate speech, one must take a close look at Free Speech. In order to do this it is important to know the policies and objectives of the first amendment. Thomas I.

Emerson (1970) has summarized four essential values served by the constitutional protection of free expression and free speech: First, freedom of expression is essential as a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment. The proper end of a man is the realization of his character and the potentialities as a human being. For the achievement of this self-realization the mind must be free. Hence suppression of belief, opinion or other expressions an affront to the dignity of a man, essentially a negation of mans essential nature. Second, freedom of expression is an essential process for

discovering knowledge and truth. An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to the opposition, and make full use of different minds..

Third, freedom of expression is essential to provide for participation in decision making by all members of a society. This is particularly significant for political decisions... Finally, freedom of expression is a method of achieving a more adaptable and hence a more stable community, of maintaining, the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus. This follows because suppression of discussion makes a rational judgment impossible, substituting force for reason; because suppression promotes inflexibility and stultification, preventing society from adjusting to changing circumstances developing new ideas; and because suppression conceals the real problems confronting a society, diverting public attention from the critical issues.. The Supreme Court has upheld the first amendment at no costs, due to the above summary of Thomas Imerson. Perhaps the most famous defense of the right to express hate occurred in the case of Stokie, Illinois, in 1977 when a US neo-Nazi group tried to march on a public street largely populated by many Holocaust survivors(Owen, 1998).

The courts decision was based on the First Amendment. They believed they were ultimately benefiting minorities, by protecting their right to express their views freely. In another Supreme Court Case, Cohen vs. California, a conviction was overturned on a young man who wore a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft," (Greenawalt, 1995). The Court stressed the emotive elements of communication and there constitutional protection, given the fact that not all words evoke violence.

The Supreme Court also upheld a decision on

hate speech when Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkins campaign to outlaw pornography, based on their view that pornography is hate speech because it degrades women, was thrown out because of the first amendment. However, the two were successful in creating a severe censorship law in Canada, but the law backfired when the people who received punishment were prominent homosexual authors ,known for their hate and pornography, including Andrea Dworkin (Owen, 1998). The conflict over Censorship vs. Hate speech can easily be turned into a constitutional argument: The First Amendment versus the Fourteenth Amendment- or Civil Liberties versus Civil Rights.

The liberty to speak freely even though it might offend, or the rights of those in minority to be equally protected from the law, which includes protection from intimidation from who or what they are (Johnson, 2001). Words like Nigger, Fagot, and Spik are words that are used to tear away at the human flesh and dive deep into the core of the human spirit. Take for instance the White Supremacist leader Benjamin Nathaniel Smith of the "World Church of the Creator," who began a two-state shooting spree that claimed two live and injured nine (Loeb, 1999). This spree was started because Smith became so consumed with the hate language of the church that he was willing to take his own life in pursuit of his white supremacist objectives.

Many believe hate language induces violence and makes it easier for violence to occur. This is why many Colleges and Universities have adopted speech codes. These speech codes have caused quite a controversy because some believe it is a form of censorship while others believe it protects the civil

rights of minorities. To be more specific these speech codes prohibit the use of language that create a hostile learning environment - speech which insults, demeans or stigmatizes - because of race, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity (Johnson, 2001).

There is not a single decent living person that would argue with the motives behind speech codes because these codes are meant to create civility, and community. However, the debate is over the appropriate way to achieve these codes. In the words of the ACLU" all members of the academic community have the right to hold and express views that others find repugnant, offensive, or emotionally distressing," (ACLU, 2002). In a Michael Myers quote , the more free speech the better, "As a former student activist, and as a current black militant, I believe that free speech is a minoritys strongest weapon..Paternalism and censorship offer the college student a tranquilizer as the antidote to campus and societal racism. What we need is an alarm clock.

What we need is free speech and more free speech..," (Strossen, 1994). The ACLU also believes the biggest deterrent to hate speech is education and more free speech (ACLU, 2002). In 1992 the Supreme Court gave its reasoning on why a speech code law in the city of St. Paul was unconstitutional.

This reason applies to most university speech codes as well. It says: "A problem with most speech codes is they only apply to "fighting words" that insult, or provoke violence "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." Expressions containing abusive invective no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are adressed to one of the

specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use "fighting words" in connection with other ideas-to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexualityare not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects" To give the best explanation possible of this court ruling would be to say inconsistency in the speech codes. For instance, the St.

Paul speech code wanted to eliminate some hate speech but not others. With the constitution, and for the Hate Speech 10 Supreme Court to over rule an amendment, there must be consistency. This is the primary reason why many speech codes are not held up, with in the court of law. There are some aspects and instances in which Freedom of Speech becomes more of a privilege than a right. For instance, terroristic threatening, is considered a felony and one can be sent to jail. Another instance is when a speaker tries to provoke a fight, his or her expressive interest is slight; his or her remarks represent initial action toward engaging in the fight and may be punished (Greenawalt, 1995).

Yes, hate speech wounds an abused listener, has the dangers of a violent response, is offensive, and can create long-term harms, but do these harms out-way the costs of losing our freedom? Some would like to thinks so, and some would also say no. Yes is most hate speech, stupidity and bigotry? Of course, but when we silence people like Eminem and John Rocker or students at a university for using words that offend or cause people to be wounded, we

take away their right to be free and live in a place where it is their right and freedom to say whatever they want. Is it O.K. morally, to offend, or use abusive language against someone? No, it is not. But, it is a persons right and freedom because they live in the U.S.

of A. Censorship is not the answer because it normally backfires and censors the people that were not meant to be censored. This is where people stand up for their fellow citizens and Hate Speech 11 speak back to those that speak hate with words of love and hope. This is where Institutions allow students to say what ever is on their mind and to learn from other viewpoints and ideas. In the age of technology, we have so may ways to affect this world in a positive way. Instead of trying to fight a never ending battle, people need to start focusing their attention on educating the younger generations to speak words of love instead of words of hate.

In conclusion, knowledge of the first and fourteenth amendments is vital in the fight against hate speech (ONeil, 1972).

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New