Hate Speech - Legal, but Unnecessary -- essays research papers

Hate Speech - Legal, moreover Unnecessary      art object a clear and concise definition remains forthcoming, it is easier to establish what detest idiom is not. Hate patois is wrong but legal in the United States of America mostly because we have the freedom of reference. But the archetypical Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from regime suppression. In this case, people are allowed to use abominate speech and not get arrested or whatsoever legal actions against them. The best way to reappearance obnoxious speech such as this is with more than speech. Persuasion, not violence, is the source to this line (Jouhari).      Hate speech has been mis harbournly tied with other categories of speech both legal and illegal. One should avoid confusing abhor speech with something it is not because other legal implications might come into play. Hate speech is not obscene speech. According to the guidelines of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) for inauspicious speech, which define indecent speech as, "limited to language or satisfying that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as ofttimes by the contemporary community standards for the broadcast means, sexual activities or organs," indeed hate speech is not indecent speech either (Pullma). indecent speech should also be kept apart from the category of hate speech, which involves victimization.      Hate speech is offensive language towards a particular group, race, gender, or religion. These include the exasperateing words by which their very utterance bring down injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been healthful observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight neighborly value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social intere st in order and ethics (Pullma).      There is no choice but to continue tolerating intolerance, until the Constitution itself would be amended, which is an event un deally to occur. In the meantime, individual cases and court opinions add more problems to the already growing problem called the constitutionality of hate speech. Hate speech on the Internet is one of those problems, unique, but part of the whole picture.    &n... ...use all hate speech is, is speech that makes people feel inferior or doleful.      I believe that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have to had agree with me if he was here in this day and time about the way at tackling this problem. This method of problem solving is nonviolent and effective. Just like that in the Letter from Birmingham fling that Dr. King wrote to the Clergyman. He never used any speech to insult or put down any race or social group. He wrote what he believed without this type of spee ch because he knew that the people, the majority, reading would take it personally and not listen to what he really had to say. In addition, like Thoreau says, "Men generally, under such a government as this, gestate that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them" (Jacobus, 134).      This is what I believed Dr. King did when he spoke. He got the attention of his audience then he preceded to persuading them to his beliefs. He never used hate speech even though it was legal for him to do so. Hate speech is legal and protected by the First Amendment but does that mean that people have to use it.