Is Hate Speech Free Speech?
Hate speech refers to any gesture, conduct or speech that is prohibited by law because it may cause prejudicial action or violence against a group or an individual (Cortese, 2006). On the other hand, free speech refers to the ability of a person or a group to communicate opinions and ideas without restriction. Different countries in the world have different means of defining the extent to which free speech should be exercised to avoid hate speech. In the United States, free speech is a constitutional right that should not be restricted. This constitutional right has led many people to propagate hate speech since the law only restricts speech that leads to extreme actions such as violence. Hate speech is not free speech although there is a very thin line between the two (Cortese, 2006).
Constitutionalists view any restriction of hate speech to be a violation of the first amendment of the United States constitution (Gelber, 2002). The freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution is meant to ensure cohesion and co-existence in the society. However, when such speech is used to cause mayhem, it stops being free speech and turn into hate speech. There are several instances in the American political, social and economic life that clearly shows that hate speech is not free speech.
Richard Poplawski was a 22-year old American youth who shot and killed three police officers who had gone to answer to a distress call in his neighborhood. These killings were a culmination of hate speech that went unchecked due to the constitution restrictions. Days before the shoot out, Richard had written a web post to the effect that the collapse of the American political and economic systems was imminent due to a conspiracy by Zionists. The post was prompted by hatred for the Jewish people. Since this freedom of speech was not restricted in any way, the youth ended up killing police officers. Those who advocate for free speech asserts that they despise what racists say, but ensure their right to say it (CQ Researcher, 2010). This is a misguided resilience that poses danger to the lives of those on the receiving end of the hate speeches. The absence of restriction on hate speech denies the minority protection from the larger groups fails to provide a platform for inclusion for all and pollutes the social environment for the minorities.
The first amendment allows citizens to use some offensive words while expressing their political views in form of rhetoric (Walker, 2002). This is in line with their right to exercise freedom of speech. However, continued use of offensive words in expression of political ideologies may become part of the citizens’ way of thinking. When this happens, the verbal expression may influence further actions such as physical assault on those who hold opposing views. For instance, a 60-year old Destin Fla was charged for killing Chilean students and wounding others. He had engaged in rhetoric and had asked his neighbor whether he was ready for a revolution. Destin viewed the students as illegal immigrants who had been brought to America to take over the country from the Americans. This view was informed by the perception that Obama was not a legal American citizen. The continuous use of offensive words by Destin influenced the decision to kill look normal. The freedom of speech that should have been used constructively turned out to be destructive. When it becomes destructive, it is no longer free speech, but hate speech.
The presence of far-right extremists in America creates a good platform to evaluate free speech and hate speech (Shiell, 2009). The far-right extremists are radicals who propagate their political ideologies violently. The basis of their violence is the free speech guaranteed to them by the constitution. These extremist groups recruit members by preaching hate speech against the government or other minority groups. Keith Luke, a 22 year old American shot dead several immigrants and planned to head for synagogue to kill other people. He had expressed his wish to eliminate other races so that the whites could not become extinct. The fact that the law enforcement agents could not take action before the crimes were committed shows how thin the line is between free speech and hate speech. The law prohibits restrictions of hate speech since citizens have absolute right to exercise free speech. If the law was a bit restrictive on hate speech, such an incident could not have taken place because police could have taken a proactive action by arresting Luke before killing his victims.
In conclusion, it is important to point out that there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. The first amendment provides American citizens with the right to exercise free speech while safeguarding them against hate speech restrictions. This freedom becomes a challenge when the people decide to misuse it. While enjoying their right to free speech, many Americans go overboard and infringe on others’ rights or contravene government regulations. Therefore, free speech is very different from hate speech.
References
Cortese, A.J. (2006). Opposing Hate Speech. California: Greenwood Publishing Group.
CQ Researcher. (2010). Issues in Terrorism and Homeland Security: Selections from CQ Researcher. California: SAGE.
Gelber, K. (2002). Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate. New York:
John Benjamins Publishing.
Shiell, T.C. (2009). Campus hate speech on trial. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Walker, S. (2002). Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy. Nebraska: University
of Nebraska.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]