Pack, Christopher Hate Speech Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Petrakopoulos...

Description

Pack 1

Christopher Pack Taundra Miles-Cranor CCR Literacy December 14, 2017

Hate Speech Must Stay During the age of social media, people tend to despise others on the internet for their offensive comments. This kind of expression is apparently difficult to avoid since it has the power to irritate others which is why political correctness and the desire for hate speech to be banned exists. It is understandable why people would want limits in place on what others are allowed to say. However, these same men and women must look at the objective facts and reasons behind this issue. Although abhorrent statements may displease people, it should stay protected under the First Amendment because it is difficult to categorize certain comments as hate speech, and a court case decision officially declared that hate speech is protected. One of the issues with banning hate speech is that it is challenging to determine what can be considered hate speech. Threats and anything that incites violence could be clearly categorized as abominable, but there are some expressions that are in the grey area. Suzanne Nossel, a former Secretary of State assistant who is involved with public interest law and human rights, states in her article that there is no guideline for the “less definable” types of the hate speech. She gave one example of how “what some would classify as hate speech directed at women, our president might dub locker room talk.” Nossell also illustrated what it would be like if hate speech was prohibited. She said that every citizen would avoid expressing themselves, and media sources would have “armies of lawyers” because they have no definitive clue as to what could be observed as hate speech in the court of law. Nossel’s article demonstrated not only the difficulty of placing limits on hate speech, but also the chaos that would be created because

Pack 2

there is not clear way to determine what is hate speech. People interpret expressions differently than others which is why it would be such a conflict to make laws on offensive comments. To add on to hate speech being hard to detect, there was a court case entitled Terminiello v. Chicago focused on this problem. According to Oyez, a Supreme Court case website by Cornell University, Father Terminiello was in an auditorium in Chicago and made a spiteful speech about certain races and political groups. A crowd protested his comments and the police arrested Terminiello for disturbing the peace. Later on, this situation went to the Supreme Court and majority of the judges determined that the police unconstitutionally infringed on Terminiello’s right to free speech. This case decision matters because it will be applied to other court cases which is a precedent based on Thomas Patterson’s book, We The People. This case proves that hate speech should to be protected because the Supreme Court judges look at the main reason the framers of the Constitution included freedom of speech as a right. The reason is to protect all kinds of speech including the most offensives ones. Even though Terminiello did offend a crowd a people with loathing statements, his right was still protected because it is unconstitutional to limit anyone’s right to free speech. Many people like Nahila Bonfiglio, a journalist for the Daily Texan, would say that hate speech is a way of abusing free speech. In Bonfiglio’s article, she states that there has to be limits to these aggressive comments because it crosses the line. It is true that such comments can assail individuals emotionally and may even further divide a nation. However, free speech cannot be abused because the framers did not place any limits on free speech. There is nowhere in the Constitution that has restrictions on what people can say. Another factor to consider is that the aforementioned court case shows that there is no limit to free speech. Terminiello used harmful words that offended many, but his right to free speech was infringed according to the Supreme

Pack 3

Court. Based on that decision, and the context of the Constitution, free speech is unlimited regardless of the speech’s hostile content. In conclusion, hate speech should be protected because of the numerous aspects involved. First off, the fact that people interpret many things differently makes it tough to restrict hate speech. Next, the court case established that offensive speech is protected under the Constitution. Finally, the Constitution has no restriction to free speech. These key points illustrate that not only should hate speech should be protected, but also that hate speech is protected. Yes, it is hard to accept that racists, bigots and political extremists can get away with words filled with malice, but that is the reality of American democracy. If there was a limit placed on free speech, then it would not be free speech at all. The best thing about free speech is that everyone can express their opinions without the fear of breaking the law. With this in mind, hate speech is here to stay and everyone has the choice to ignore it.

Pack 4

Works Cited Bonfiglio, Nahila. “Hate Speech Should Not Be Protected under the First Amendment.” The Daily Texan, www.dailytexanonline.com/2016/08/30/hate-speech-should-not-beprotected-under-the-first-amendment. Nossel, Suzanne. “The Problem With Making Hate Speech Illegal.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy,14 Aug. 2017 ,foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/14/the-problem-with-making-hatespeech-illegal-trump-charlottesville-virginia-nazi-white-nationalist-supremacist/.

Patterson, Thomas E. We The People. McGraw-Hill Education, 2017. “Terminiello v. Chicago .” Oyez , www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/337us1. U.S. Constitution. Amend I

‘...