Hate Speech Essay Conclusion

Argumentative Essay on Freedom of Speech

Often time’s people question what is ethical or not. What is ethical to one person might be unethical to another, and vise versa. This same belief goes with speech and the way we communicate. There are many words and slang’s that have a different meaning according to the person. With that said, someone should not be punished for a hate crime simply because we all analyze and portray speech differently. After reading both articles, my opinion did not change on the subject. If anything it just expanded into a more bias one. I thought that the article where professor Charles Lawrence III agreed with punishment of hate speech had insufficient examples and ideas on the manner. Therefore, I believe that there is no need for punishment.


EssayLib.com can write a Custom Argumentative Essay for You!


No madder what your background is or who you are, you have sometime in your life had to deal with some kind of hatred speech. The difference is that some people have had to deal with it on a usual basis. If the government were to start punishing hate speech, then everyone would be a victim. People would start pressing charges on anyone who verbally abused them.

Nowadays, people are suing others for pretty much anything, and charging people with hate crimes would have the same effect. Jonathan Rauch from Harper’s Magazine states, “Eventually, any criticism of any group will be ‘prejudice.’” This statement sums up the fact that words mean many things and basically anything you say can be offensive to anyone. For instance, if I were to go up to a stranger and say what’s up dog, how are you, then different views could be portrayed? One view, the view that I intended would be calling him/her the slang word “dog” which really means bro or buddy. But others might view the slang word as being insultive or abusive to whom they are. The slang word “dog” is just one example of how words are used and portrayed differently by people. Another reason that punishing hate speech is insufficient is that people might think someone is talking bad about them, but in all actuality, no one is. Jonathan Rauch gives a great example of this when he explains his story about being on the bus. I’m sure you’ve read it, so I’m not going to explain it, but what I am going to say is that this happens everyday. Even if you see someone laughing at something, you think to yourself, “huh, are they laughing at me, do I have something in my nose?” We think like that, even though the other person is not directing his attention to you.

Throughout this article, I have just given you a narrow-minded view about punishing speech. The article by Charles Lawrence III was not convincing simply because all he wrote were examples of how hatred speech have effected people. I already new that and for the examples that I haven’t experienced on my own, I surely have heard them on the news. The point is that he tells me what I have already realized, and does not bring up new views of why speech should be punished. He should have dug deeper and gave opinions that were not self-explanatory.

Speech is something that is vital for communication. It is something that we all can understand but is something that we view differently. We all have the freedom of speech and opinion, which partially makes us who we are. By taking away this freedom and punishing it, people would not be the same. Having different views on issues and subjects have helped Americans learn and understand throughout history. So by taking away this freedom, understanding different point of views would become non-existent, and therefore our mind would become narrowed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTENTION!!!HotEssays.blogspot.com provides free sample argumentative essays and argumentative essay examples on any topics and subjects. EssayLib.com essay writing service produces 100% custom essays, term papers & research papers, written by quality essay writers only. The prices start from $11 per page. You can get a custom argumentative essay on Freedom of Speech now!


hate speech

  • Length: 1942 words (5.5 double-spaced pages)
  • Rating: Excellent
Open Document

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - More ↓
Filtered Freedom
Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to prepare for the future, despite the severity of the content.
As a public place designed to encourage mental stimulation, obstruction of knowledge in a library is a sociological setback. Hindering a nation’s source of intellectual growth and the entire potential of the country, will inevitably do more harm than it can good. Though one may argue that the preservation of information regarding such events could inspire new acts of hate, the past will shed light on what to do in such situations. People need to understand why the statements made in the past did not always justify their actions. It is our cultural history that provides us with insight of what is just and what is prejudiced.
Cultural values feed off freedom of expression, whether it is through censorship or the proclamation of beliefs and feelings. Such a liberty is the foundation of our country, and should not be obstructed in a place of common ground such as a library.

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"hate speech." 123HelpMe.com. 10 Mar 2018
    <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=68874>.

LengthColor Rating 
On the Issue of Hate Speech - ... In 2005, a local government was allowed to impose penalties on a KKK member if it can be proved that the act of burning a cross was "intended to intimidate" (Turley, Jonathan. Washingtonpost.com). However, the line that the decision tried to impose was meaningless, since the government could easily state the history of the symbol in question without considering the circumstances of the act itself. In the previously mentioned case pertaining to the Stolen Valor Act, the court took into account the government's ability to bend definitions as well....   [tags: free speech, supreme court, KKK]
:: 8 Works Cited
1202 words
(3.4 pages)
Powerful Essays[preview]
Should Hate Speech be Regulated? - Imagine a person talking with a hand holding their tongue, it sounds pretty uncomfortable. Now, image a person having to do that every time talking to their friends, family members, or boyfriend/girlfriend. Holding their tongue would restrict them of what they could say and when they could say it. Believe it or not, this is a topic that has been tossed around from Supreme Court to everyday life. People have different opinions on how it should be regulated or if it should be regulated. It is hate speech....   [tags: restriction violates the first ammendment]1537 words
(4.4 pages)
Better Essays[preview]
Cyber Bullying and Hate Speech - Free speech is both a universal and national liberty. The United Nations and the United States of America believe that free speech is something that humans should be allowed to exercise. However, each respective group has their own limitations. These limitation, although broad, protect against free speech being taken too far. Like any liberty or privilege there must be a line in the sand to keep extremists from aggressively using and abusing this right. The United Nations formed "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." With in this declaration are 40 articles with a preamble examining the rights which they believe are basic and necessary....   [tags: Freedom of Speech 2014]
:: 7 Works Cited
1170 words
(3.3 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]
Hate Speech - Legal, but Unnecessary - Hate Speech - Legal, but Unnecessary While a clear and concise definition remains forthcoming, it is easier to establish what hate speech is not. Hate speech is wrong but legal in the United States of America mostly because we have the freedom of speech. But the First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. In this case, people are allowed to use hate speech and not get arrested or any legal actions against them. The best way to counter obnoxious speech such as this is with more speech....   [tags: essays research papers]1365 words
(3.9 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]
The Constitutionality of Hate Speech - In order to reduce the astonishing number of hate crimes in the United States, the Federal Government should restrict hate speech, and the expressions of hateful ideas, in all its forms, in all places, both public and private. However, it is imperative that hate speech be defined first. Contrary to some opinions, it is possible to accurately define hate speech, because hate speech does not actually have many elusive forms. Hate speech includes fighting words as defined in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, and words that incite violence or aggression towards a specific group based on sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, or political orientation by the provision of information that is not valid a...   [tags: Papers]3493 words
(10 pages)
Powerful Essays[preview]
Hate Speech on the Internet - Hate Speech on the Internet I. Hate Speech on the Internet Generally, hate speech receives constitutional protection and is not prosecuted that is why there are relatively few court cases addressing this issue on the Internet. For this reason, sites containing speech discriminating people because of their race or sexual inclinations are available on the Internet. These include the "Ku Klux Klan," "Nazis," "White Socialist Party," "Skinheads" or "Aryan Nation," for example, which speech is not directed to any person in particular, thus not punishable....   [tags: Papers]2995 words
(8.6 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]
Hate Speech - Hatespeech Hate Speech and the People who use it Hate speech; is this the type of speech that the First Amendment protects. Should this type of speech be defended. If this type of speech is censored on college campuses, have the students lost their right to the First Amendment. What kind of damage does hate speech cause physical and emotional. Who does hate speech affect. Is hate speech protected by the first amendment. According to Charles R. Lawrence III, it is not. “When racist speech takes the form of face-to-face insults, catcalls, or other assaultive speech aimed at an individual or small group of persons, it falls directly within the “fighting words” exception to First Amendment p...   [tags: essays papers]
:: 2 Works Cited
1241 words
(3.5 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]
hate speech - Filtered Freedom Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference....   [tags: essays research papers]1942 words
(5.5 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]
A Student Looks at Hate Speech and Hate Web Sites - A Student Looks at Hate Speech and Hate Web Sites Before delving into the ethics of hate sites, a definition of hate speech is required because it is the foundation of these 'hate sites.' Hate speech disparages someone because of an immutable characteristic of that person - such as his or her race, gender, or ethnicity. It's been around for many years, and was primarily confined to pamphlets, books, magazines, and flyers. These media channels were prohibitive. Publishing a single pamphlet could cost hundreds of dollars, assuming that some printer would agree to handle the job....   [tags: Sell Websites Buy Web Sites]1611 words
(4.6 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]
Against Hate Speech - Against Hate Speech Hate crimes are done too frequently in the United States. Although we have laws that supposedly regulate them, many people still feel the need to commit acts of violence on people that are different than them. Many of these crimes originate with some sort of hate speech. People get ideas from other people, passed down from previous generations. Some people don’t find anything wrong with verbally abusing another human. Some world leaders have participated in hate speech, hate crimes, or genocide....   [tags: social issues]719 words
(2.1 pages)
Strong Essays[preview]

Related Searches

Hate Speech         Intellectual Growth         Various Forms         Freedom Of Speech         Instances         Capabilities         Stimulation         Preference        




America consists of a government that allows for various ideologies to thrive. When a library begins to lean towards any one of these ideologies, an obstruction is placed in the path of the others. This country was not designed to favor an ideology, but to allow for all belief systems to co-exist. Often whenever a certain belief system grows too popular it rules the ideals of the law makers. Furthermore, the manufactures of internet filtering software will have biased ideologies of the viewing material and will be unable to satisfy everyone. Those who do not agree are not represented and often times easily targeted through acts of intolerance thus creating a state of repression rather than progression.
There is no way to determine who decides what is safe to view and what is not. A party’s views could obstruct the distribution of vital information necessary to our society’s progression. A move to censor the opinions of others could be detrimental to a nation whose “right to a freedom speech has allowed us to generate a great intellectual community where information and opinions flow freely” (Chiang 428). Freedom of opinion is especially essential to the lawmaking process. The people should always have the power. Taking away the freedom to voice an opinion, is equivalent to taking away the power of the people. Like many others, Chiang feels “The censorship of the Internet in public libraries would be an infringement of the First Amendment” (Chiang 428). Concurring with Chiang, Dershowitz feels the country should be “an open marketplace of ideas in which hate speech is rejected on its own demerits” (Dershowitz 426). It is the decision of the people what is to be considered audible for all ears. Freedom of debate relies upon the right of free speech. Dershowitz further explains, “we in a society founded on equal protection of the law - be selective about what constitutes hate speech or who has the power to censor if offended” (Dershowitz 426). [I used the exact punctuation from Creating America] Dershowitz emphasizes the variety of hate crimes to show that a common agreement on censorship is unlikely. Therefore one can deduce that whatever degree of censorship the government decides to set, will always make somebody unhappy. No medium can be reached.
Withholding offensive material for the sake of not offending others is detrimental to the principle of freedom of individual expression. Such a freedom should always be guaranteed. Dershowitz explains this inherent belief that “Americans tend to feel very strongly about their opinions, especially if they involve race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference and ideology and express these views using very strong words”(Dershowitz 425). Censorship cannot prevent the intolerance of many minority groups because the suppression of hate speech will silence, but not extinguish, racist or sexist thoughts and behaviors (Cowan al 250). However, unrestricted speech provides an open forum in which people can challenge the views of others and provide an alternative perspective (Cowan al 250). With the power of free speech comes the power of persuasion. In turn this leads to the spreading of new ideas whether positive or negative. Commonly held ideologies stem from the acceptance of wide spread beliefs. Despite the morality of the expression of these views the legality of their audibility should not be obstructed. Hate speech holds important functional values that form the basis of common law that protects society.
Opponents of hate speech censorship do not deny the harm that minority groups have had to endure. Often censorship is manipulated to maintain the influence that the current belief system holds on its people. Censorship of hate speech is often directed towards the proclamation of freedom of gay and lesbian couples because their presence threatens the ideal American image of family. Dershowitz explains “To many gays, homophobic speech is hateful; to some literal readers of the Bible, advocacy of a gay life style is a hateful abomination” (Dershowitz 424). Free speech in general affects different groups of people in different ways. Like Alan Dershowitz’s states; “Plainly, the concept of hate speech is in the mind of the beholder” (Dershowitz 424). The voicing of free speech is viewed as a powerful instrument that has contributed greatly to the success and advancement of many minority groups. Speech free of censorship has been vital to historical movements such as the gay and lesbian and women’s rights. “It is this unrestricted freedom that has provided the political platform from which these groups have begun to lower barriers and redefine social norms” (Cowan al 249).
Censoring hate speech would filter other important information as well. Sites containing vital information are commonly blocked because they contain certain red flag words which signal to Bess, an internet filtering software company, that such a site is too controversial. According to Peacefire.org, Bess blocks websites that supplies support for rape victims, homosexuals, and those seeking emergency contraceptive advice. One of the links from Peacefire’s page blocks access to emergency contraceptive pill information at Princeton.org. This site supplies teenagers with information on “preventing pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse.” The term sexual intercourse and emergency contraception would most defiantly be blocked by a software system such as Bess. Information about contraception is considered hate speech by certain individuals who appose the prevention of natural conception. In certain circumstances contraception is a necessary action. Without access to the website containing vital information due to Bess, so-called hate speech will prevent further options needed by individuals. This proves the fact that there is no way to develop a rule which can strictly separate what is considered offensive and what is not. Even if a rule vague enough to separate such material were established, and accepted by minority groups, such an abstract an idea could never be implemented by the government into computer code.
Government censorship in public libraries and the learning process are an incompatible combination. In any efforts the government might make to protect students from hate speech, the students are deprived of the right to make up their own minds and form opinions. Development of individual opinion is one of the core concepts that the founding fathers of this country had in mind while designing the sociological structure of this nation. Creative freedom has been discouraged when individual pieces of work reflect a fear of censorship or punishment for the claims suggested by an individual. Inherent persuasive tactics such as censorship in a learning environment often place a cap on the intellectual development of the student. How will students learn to identify and cope with bad ideas or negative arguments if they are not exposed to them or allowed to express their opinion on them? The answer for many educational institutions is to simply ignore the existence of controversial topics (Dority). This in turn promotes the idea that when one comes up with his own opinions, he is only allowed to voice them if they are politically correct. Discouragement of individuality hinders new ideas. New ideas are the basis for development, and without development, society cannot progress. This is why individual thought should be encouraged and not censored. A biased informant can easily shape the beliefs of the student to believe in the same manner. However the development of such beliefs is not education, but merely preaching. Oftentimes when people engage in preaching, they get emotionally caught up and allow their feelings to over rule their sense of rationale, often failing to think things through. This act hinders development of society and violates our right of individual belief.
Due to the various forms of hate speech, there can never be one true judge of what is to be censored and what is not to be. Our society has always encouraged the progression of knowledge. However the form and accessibility of this material is often questioned. Though many may argue that censorship protects, it often cripples the intellectual mind and soul. Denying certain offensive information to those seeking knowledge in a library tells the public that thought differing from the current era’s ethos will no be tolerated. Therefore an action such as censoring the internet in a library is not even ideally plausible, because there is no just way of doing so. Oftentimes material is often misinterpreted as hateful, and is considered grounds for censorship whereas it was intended for certain value. Even if there was an ethical way of handling this situation, this act violates the very principles on which this country was founded. Ethical stances on such material should not be formed by the mere existence of its controversy, but rather through individual study and personal conclusion. Definition of character is founded upon an individual’s desire to educate himself. Individuality should not be discouraged, when discretion is advised.






















Work Cited
Chiang, Vicki. “Libraries, the Internet, and Freedom of Speech.” Joyce Moser and Ann
Watters 427-430
Dershowitz, Alan M. “What is Hate Speech?” Joyce Moser and Ann Watters 424-426
Dority, Barbara. “Filtering: Just Another Form of Censorship.” Humanist 59.2 (1999).
Academic Elite. Oklahoma State University Edmond Low Libraries. Article
1591904. 5 November 2003
Kelly, cited by Cowen, et al.
Moser, Joyce and Watters, Ann, ed. Creating America. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 2002
Strossen, cited by Cowen, et al.



0 Replies to “Hate Speech Essay Conclusion”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *