Tag Archives: hate speech

When has Hate Speech Gone Too Far?

Hate Speech is everywhere and even some little things you say everyday could be considered Hate Speech. The question is, at what point does Hate Speech become unjustifiable? When is it too  much? In the video What is Hate Speech? We Asked College Students, the filmmaker asked the students what things may be hate speech and many people thought ¨women say men are scum¨ was not Hate Speech. They took no time to decide that its degrading men and that it is obvious hate speech. What they did think was bad though, was some of the things Trump has said. It seems that hate speech begins to get fought against when the topic has higher influence. For example, if you saw a guy on the street saying he hates women, everyone would just think the guy was crazy and move on, but if it was multiple guys, then people would stop, police would be called, and people would begin to protest against their opinion. An article named Online Misogyny Is Hate Speech: Like other forms of hate speech, it can lead to violence also wrote how women are getting attacked on the internet and the attackers are gaining supporters. Mentioning how these supporters have begun to kill others seems to bring in the view that the attackers should be silenced to avoid further influence, but in my opinion, it is not the attackers fault. How could the attacker predict what their supporters will do? They should not be silenced because someone, who they may not have even known, goes that extra mile and hurts an innocent person.  

In Snyder V. Phelps, a family presses charges on a church group for protesting during a gay veterans funeral. They said discriminating things about the man who laid dead in his coffin, but the Supreme Court ruled it not against the laws of Hate Speech. Even though what the church group had done was completely morally and ethically wrong, they did have a right to be there. They were able to spread their message but the way they did it does not shed them in a good light. Its sad but these are the things we must cherish. Hate Speech is a very complex form of protest and it should be kept with as little regulation as possible. The only time the government should step in is when the hate speech insights violence. There should be no threats, but only if it were that simple.

Tags: Hate Speech, discrimination

Works Cited

Kane, Vivian. “Online Misogyny Is Hate Speech: Like other forms of hate speech, it can lead to violence.” Moment, Sept.-Oct. 2018, p. 18. Student Resources in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A562691146/GPS?u=mono131514&sid=GPS&xid=38deab27. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

“Snyder v. Phelps.” Oyez, 19 Feb. 2019, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-751.

“What Is Hate Speech? We Asked College Students.” YouTube. N. p., 2019. Web. 25 Feb. 2019.

Advertisements

Is Hate Speech Protected by the First Amendment?

Hate Speech By: Kaylee Kellogg

Does the first amendment protect against hate speech? Hate speech is speech that offend or hurts certain group of people based on their character traits. Legally someone can run down the street and say the ¨n word¨ at a group of people, but they can’t yell fire in a theater or yell bomb on a plane since that is a threat. Many people do not know what draws the line between hate speech and free speech.

One of the most famous court cases happened in 1969 between a KKK member and the state of Ohio. The Ku Klux Klan has been known for using their hateful words towards many individuals. Clarence Brandenburg was arrested because of a KKK speech that he stated they he wanted to overthrow the government. This was later overturned. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan pleaded that the constitution ensures your right for free speech and free press. This does not allow the states to forbid this behavior even if it may be taboo.

I believe that hate speech is protected by our first amendment right. However, our citizens should have respect towards other individuals.  We were given a right to say what we believe in and our country gives us that right. Someone can say that they do not like that people can get abortions. They can also say that they are murders and go to hell. That is hate speech, but it is also freedom of speech and they can convey how they feel on certain topics. It is protected by our constitution. If we regulate hate speech how will we be able to tell the difference between hate speech and freedom of speech? In 2011 there was a case against a priest that would picket at funerals of homosexuals. In the lawsuit the families sued over emotional turmoil. However, this is just someone proclaiming his rights and beliefs and making it public. The supreme court sided with the priest and allowed him to do this protecting his first amendment right. The first amendment helps people express themselves. Our country should keep it this way even if the words are hurtful.

Does banning hate speech violate an individual’s freedom of speech rights?

The 1st Amendment includes that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, in other words, all people have the freedom to express themselves. Although, there are some first amendment limits of speech, including hate speech. In recent years, hate speech has become a huge controversial topic, determining where it exactly crosses the line. Hate speech is defined by USLegal, Inc as, “communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.”  An example of hate speech today is the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at military funerals of US soldiers to spread a message that God is punishing America for supporting homosexuality by killing our soldiers. The Snyder v. Phelps case is a direct example of this current issue, that was taken to the courts. Imagine you are at your relatives funeral, mourning the loss of your loved one, and people show up protesting something that has nothing to do with your relative at all. Protesters will say things such as, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God blew up the soldiers.” To many, this is offensive and considered hate speech because it is showing hatred towards the gay community.

Funerals are meant to be a respectful remembrance and time to mourn over loved ones. Bringing protests regarding something that has nothing to do with the soldier himself, that may offend a mourning family, is very disrespectful. One has the right to express themselves as freely as they desire, but it crosses a line when effort is put in to negatively disturb another party emotionally and physically. The banning of hate speech would prevent this happening to anyone or any group of people. The first amendment should not protect people that are purposely saying hateful things, whether at a funeral or any where. All people have the freedom of speech, but also all people have the right to feel comfortable and respected by others.

Is Hate Speech Protected by the First Amendment?

Topic- Hate Speech- Kaylee Kellogg

Does the first amendment protect against hate speech? Hate speech is speech that offend or hurts certain group of people based on their character traits. Legally someone can run down the street and say the ¨n word¨ at a group of people, but they can’t yell fire in a theater or yell bomb on a plane since that is a threat. This has been going on for a lot of years. Currently hate speech is protected by the first amendment. There have been many times where this has been brought to the Supreme Court. Many people do not know what draws the line between hate speech and free speech.

One of the most famous court cases happened in 1969 between a KKK member and the state of Ohio. The Ku Klux Klan has been known for using their hateful words towards many individuals. Clarence Brandenburg was arrested because of a KKK speech that he stated they he wanted to overthrow the government. This was later overturned. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan pleaded that the constitution ensures your right for free speech and free press. This does not allow the states to forbid this behavior even if it may be taboo. There are many positive aspects for making hate speech a first amendment violation. The first reason is that it would protect people from being harassed in environment that may be a safe place. If people want to get an abortion they should not be harassed. However, there are many negative aspects about making hate speech banned. This would limit what people can say, and we want people to be able to share what is on their mind.

I believe that hate speech is protected by our first amendment right. However, our citizens should have respect towards other individuals.  We were given a right to say what we believe in and our country gives us that right. Someone can say that they do not like that people can get abortions. They can also say that they are murders and go to hell. That is hate speech, but it is also freedom of speech and they can convey how they feel on certain topics. It is protected by our constitution. If we regulate hate speech how will we be able to tell the difference between hate speech and freedom of speech? In 2011 there was a case against a priest that would picket at funerals of homosexuals. In the lawsuit the families sued over emotional turmoil. However, this is just someone proclaiming his rights and beliefs and making it public. The supreme court sided with the priest and allowed him to do this protecting his first amendment right. The first amendment helps people express themselves. Our country should keep it this way even if the words are hurtful.

Should hate speech be punished similarly to fighting words?

Throughout history, our world has struggled for rightful speech freedoms from the government. Fortunately, the United States created the First Amendment in 1791 which generally ruled freedom of speech; with such a limitless topic, our country set certain restrictions regarding speech. Obscenity, slander, commercial speech, and fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment, meaning that people are at risk for punishment if caught committing one of these restrictions. Among these restrictions, uncertainty has arisen regarding logistics of what is encompassed by such broad topics. One topic of doubt is whether hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment or treated similarly to fighting words. Specifically, hate speech threatens a certain group based on prejudice through speech or writing. Fighting words express an intention to act upon threatening words or challenge someone. One legal instance differentiating between hate speech and fighting words was the National Socialist Party vs. the Village of Skokie. In this case, the NSPA wished to hold a white power demonstration in various villages in Illinois. Officially, their demonstrations and Nazi promotions were not ruled fighting words because the party did not openly discuss an intention to act upon their beliefs. Although their swastikas and overall message were considered hate speech, the party was still allowed to march due to the First Amendment’s protection of speech and symbols. Since fighting words can put one at risk for punishment, many people wonder whether hate speech should risk penalty due to the similarities.

The lack of regulation for hate speech created an abundance of openly expressed prejudice and tension throughout the United States. Since the First Amendment protects hate speech, people are legally allowed to spread hatred and derogatory terms towards specific groups of people. I believe that this limitless ability to overtly spread prejudice resentment towards others must be regulated by law and punished similarly to fighting words in court. Obviously, the transition between hate speech and fighting words is a very slippery slope; the only difference being the speaker’s intentions. If someone is comfortable enough to openly degrade groups of people, he or she must be comfortable enough to act upon their superiority sentiment. Furthermore, hate speech typically generalizes a group of innocent people and threatens each member of said group. With such a broad target, the risk of hate speech becoming fighting words expands immensely. Since hate speech and fighting words are difficult to distinguish between, the judicial system must rule based on solely viewpoint and opinions regarding hate speech and its protection under the First Amendment. This essay by Adrienne Stone further explores the problematic method on which the court bases its decisions regarding hate speech versus fighting words. Ultimately, differentiating between the legality of hate speech and fighting words is difficult to do accurately. Due to the likeness of the two, fighting words and hate speech should be treated alike in court and not protected by the First Amendment.

“Definition Of HATE SPEECH”. Merriam-Webster.Com, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech.

Fas.Org, 2019, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.

“{{Meta.Pagetitle}}”. {{Meta.Sitename}}, 2019, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

Stone, Adrienne. “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech.” Constitutional Commentary, vol. 32, no. 3, Fall 2017, pp. 687–696. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,geo,url,cpid&custid=s7324964&geocustid=s7324964&db=aph&AN=126502719&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
US Legal, Inc. “Hate Speech Law And Legal Definition | Uslegal, Inc.”. Definitions.Uslegal.Com, 2019, https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/.

Should hate speech be protected under the First Amendment?

Hate speech is defined by the American Bar Association as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups based on race, color, religion, sexual orientation, and many others. There are several cases of people speaking out where others may take offense, it’s at which point it should no longer be protected, more so when it turns to putting someone’s life in danger or when the threat sparks violence or crimes being committed. In 2014, there was a case where a man, Anthony Elonis, was threatening his ex-wife, coworkers, a class of students, and FBI after the ending of his marriage and losing his job. He was sent to jail for 3 years and after on supervised release. Although he claimed these weren’t “true threats”, the court must initiate legal action after such vulgar language is stated and portrayed in a way in attempt to harm another. Another example is a few years earlier, in 2012, the Confederate Flags were removed in South Carolina. The purpose of legislators, which was a group that went by “The Sons of the Confederate Veterans” doing this was to remember of those who fought for what they had believed in. However, a majority took this as offensive and crossing the line. A few years after, the flags were returned back to their original place outside of the capitol building in South Carolina. The defendant in both cases maybe intended no harm, but from another was seen as unnecessary and inconsiderate.

This makes it very difficult to define exactly how to label hate speech as “One person’s hate speech is another person’s beliefs.” Another problem that ties into this is that something that an individual says or does can define a group as a whole and that can lead to many other complications. All in all, I think it is important that every person have a right to say or stand with what they believe and I really do think it’s a case by case trial on if it was intended to be more than expression of one’s opinion and whether that be protected then or not under the rights of the First Amendment. At that time, it would be determined if the “hate speech” is backed up with sincerity and if it will spark unnecessary violence.

Where Does Hate Speech Cross the Line?

Ever since the Constitution was written, freedom of speech has been a guaranteed right granted to all Americans. As times are changing, the question of where hate speech fits into this right to speak freely has heavily been debated. Hate speech is defined by the American Bar Association as speech that offends, threatens or insults groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or other traits. The word used in this definition, threats, is one that alarms many readers as they believe dangerous threats should not be protected by laws and should be taken seriously by police and the court of law. This being said, is hate speech protected by the first amendment and if so, when should hate speech no longer be protected under law? In the United States Supreme Court case, Elonis vs U.S. (2014), saw Anthony Elonis threatening his ex-wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, a FBI agent and the local police via Facebook. After a long court process, Elonis was sentenced to forty-four months in prison with three years of supervision upon his release. During the trials, it was argued that the threats were not “true threats” and that it was a violation of the first amendment if he were to be imprisoned. The court ultimately ruled that the threats were an act of danger and was convicted of four out of the five counts. This displays the difference of saying strongly worded opinions against different people and threatening them. In this particular case, threats were not protected by the first amendment due to the fact that people’s lives were targeted through the threats.

On the other end of this topic of threats versus hate speech, the Supreme Court Case of Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) favored on the side of the person being charged for making threats. Brandenburg was an active member of the KKK in Ohio and was arrested for making threats that implied he was calling for an overthrow of the government. Once the case got all the way to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that no violent or illegal actions followed the threat and that the Ohio Court violated Brandenburg’s right to freedom of speech granted by the first amendment. The idea of threats versus hate speech is still heavily debated nearly 50 years after this case came to a close as the definition of threats and hate speech still do not have a clear separation. Overall, the first amendment protects Americans through the freedom of speech, but the debate on hate speech versus threats questions how the extent of this freedom of speech.

Through court cases and the definitions of hate speech, it can be determined that threats are protected by the first amendment unless someone’s life is in danger or the threat sparks violence or crimes being committed.

 

Works Cited:

“ABA Division For Public Education: Students: Debating The “Mighty Constitutional Opposites”: Hate Speech Debate”. Americanbar.Org, 2018, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

“Brandenburg V. Ohio”. Oyez, 2018, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

“Facts And Case Summary – Elonis V. U.S.”. United States Courts, 2018, http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-elonis-v-us. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

“What Is THREAT? Definition Of THREAT (Black’s Law Dictionary)”. The Law Dictionary, 2018, https://thelawdictionary.org/threat/. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

“6 Major US Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases”. Thoughtco, 2018, https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.