Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our society, and it is a principle that people from history have died to fight and to defend it as a basis for democracy. Freedom of speech has been a fundamental aspect of political freedom that has been democratically granted and guarded in western society (Cortese, 13). Every citizen in the United States has a fundamental right to freedom of opinion, belief, thought and expression which also includes freedom of the press and other media of communication (Heyman, 4-16). The main importance of this clause is that it meant to protect people from censorship. Even though people are given the freedom of speech, there are still question on whether these people have the right to use it as hate speech. The argument of whether to use the freedom of speech as a hate speech should not be endured. This paper will illustrate the extent in which freedom of speech should be exercised but not as hate speech.
Hate speech can be defined as a speech intended to intimidate, degrade or even incite violence or prejudicial actions against a person based on sexual orientation, religion, nationality, ethnicity, race, and disability (Cortese, 1). In the criminal code, anyone found guilty of promoting genocide or incites and promotes hatred among individuals or a group of people is guilty of a criminal offense and deserves to be prosecuted, charged an imprisoned. According to Cortese (3)There is the equality for each under the law, and each person is also entitled to the equal benefit and equal protection without discrimination based on sex, religion, physical or mental disability, color, ethnicity, nationality, and race.
The argument that still stands is that the state has no mandate or authority to criminalize speech even if it imposes emotional hurt, offends, irritates or annoys another person (Sadurski, 18). Speech can be interdicted if it inclines to provoke a violent reaction. Sadurski (32) argues that this brings out the description of breach of the peace which is comprehensive ample to contain the transgression of disconcerting peace. Breach of peace implies the transgression of disconcerting the serenity appreciated by people and the offense of disturbing the public peace of a community. The term breach of the peace is universal and comprises all desecrations of civic mandate, decorum, and peace or the acts that tend to disturb the peace (Cortese, 23). Inflammatory language, in this case, consists of abusive, indecent and profane remarks directed to an individual or a group that aggregates to a breach of peace.
Freedom is a delicate balance. The society will always support an individual but that individual needs not to have infringed the rights of another person. About hate speech, it sometimes inflexible to comprehend why an individual right of freedom of speech would undermine the right of a person or group not to have detestable stuffs said about them. Sadurski (42) indicates that it is not right nor logic to hold the rights of haters elevated above those of the people being oppressed just because of the expression of freedom of speech. States and societies that promote the basis of hate speech institutionalize forms of violence (Sadurski, 28). When a person has been victimizing as a result of hate speech one has a right to press criminal charges against the offender by defamation of slander of character.
Hate speech can also target privileged, and disadvantaged groups in the community and this individual deserve protection from these threats. However, expressions of hatred chattered against a socially favored individual does not serve to fervently upkeep setups of exploitation that exist against them. Cortese (23) indicates that socially distinct gatherings are not in the same social, economic, and political position as deprived gatherings: the connection of energy that institutes mistreatment serves to progress socially favored groups while all the while pressing socially underprivileged gatherings (Cortese, 24). The individuals who are outraged by such persecution merit insurance and provisions as a society attempt to fix and unravel the interconnecting frameworks that have made circumstances in which underprivileged individuals are caught amid the notorious agitation and a tough position (Sadurski, 46). Western culture has been based on the backs of disadvantaged individuals, and they are as yet paying the price today because of inescapable convictions engaged with prejudice, sexism, heterosexism, and so on. Hate speech, when gone for the socially favored, is as hurtful as a scratch in a suit of the defensive layer.
Freedom of speech should be accompanied by hate speech because it oppresses, degrades and demoralizes people in the society base on their social identity. In the modern society, a person or group wishing to express their prejudice against other groups or individuals, that countenance should not matter. The core indemnities that would originate to realization from such an articulation would be the broad populace mortification, rebuke, and avoidance of the people communicating those standpoints in the society. The contexts of abuse are impartially powered by such articulations of insularity and condemnation defined by hate speech. Society has the mandate to offer security to the oppressed people who are victims of hate speech.
Works Cited
Cortese, Anthony, and Richard Delgado. Opposing Hate Speech. Westport: Praeger, 2006. Print.
Heyman, Steven J. Hate Speech and the Constitution. New York: Garland Pub, 1996. Print.
Sadurski, Wojciech. Freedom of Speech and Its Limits. Dordrecht [u.a.: Kluwer, 2002. Print.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
