Hate Speech
Speech is an essential tool in the daily human activities, in making and achieving varied objectives and goals. The law has made it clear and given everybody the mandate to freedom of speech and communication. As a matter of fact, it has no explicit ruling on the quality and the gravity of the information relayed and passed on to the people, whether subversive of beneficial to the desired target. Hate speech as become an evident trend in the society with a remarkably clear cut pedigree and extraction based on some vital facts and issues. Hate speech can be referred to as a type of speech that arouses the passion for calamitous detest and preconception directed on a given sex, race, sexual orientation, religion among a plethora of crucial issues that relate to the daily social activities and the way people interact.
Hate speech is not only regarded as spoken words, but it can include a variety of other crucial issues, majorly composed of published materials, symbols and signs, for instance the swastika sign to illustrate the strong beliefs against Jews. The constant use of such speech leads to subjugation and marginalization of groups that include, predominantly the blacks, Jews, immigrants, women and the gays which in actual sense they become victims of hostility. The quality of hate speech is always threatening, disgraceful and harmful to society. In cases where there is involvement of key opponents, it instills fear and bars the weaker opponent from gaining an equal and desirable basis with the others.
There is a considerable increase on the upshot emanating from hate speech in the United States of America. This can be ascribed from the constantly increasing hate groups such as the Islam, Neo-Nazi, black separatists, the Ku Klux Klan among others and according to profound analysts, the abolishment of the hate speech and punishment of those involved may result to violation of the first amendment. They further postulate that the minimization can be achieved through more speech and speaking against the protagonists of hate and dogmatism. This can be seen from the effort made by the Supreme Court to reduce the tendency and the predicaments accompanied with hate speech. This is evident from the clear distinction that the Supreme Court is trying to make between the hate speeches and fighting words. There are also restrictions of the libel groups that would otherwise cause a breach of the peace. The campus speech code is also widely utilized in the colleges supporting the impression that hate speech should be restricted. This is clearly seen in the University of Wisconsin in 1989 when it adopted the hate speech code. The outright obligation to achieve the essence of free speech can help curb the hate speech achieved through the provision of equal opportunities and citizenship especially to the victimized groups (Cortese, 2006).
It is evident that the utilization of hate speech always amounts to the oppression of the minor groups. It always leads to stigmatization and manipulation of the weaker group by the stronger ones. It is also clear that hate speech takes various forms that include signs published posters and spoken words. In line with this, the fight of hate speech has proven to be a hard nut to crack, in that, abolition of hate speech may amount to the defilement of the first amendment, and it may also hinder the free expression of views and peoples’ ideologies. Its restriction may also act as a catalyst to the enactment of the free speech that is believed to facilitate a better expression of peoples’ view and opinions.
The protection and enhancement of free speech is a brilliant idea, since it facilitates the abilities and opportunities of people to voice their opinions. It allows the propagation of equal opportunities and citizenship especially to the people who are believed to be victims of hate speech (Gelber, 2002). Analysts assert that restriction of hate speech provides a worth wile ground for the assimilation and the induction of the free speech. However, it is further affirmed that the banning of the types of speech may impede the facilitation of equality. The best solution is only generated through the discussion of the vital issues and coming up with clear consensus that does not suppress the ideologies of the minorities.
Reference
Cortese, A. J. P. (2006). Opposing Hate Speech. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Gelber, K. (2002). Speaking back: the free speech versus hate speech debate. Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Hate speech. (2005, November 7th). Issues & Controversies on File. Retrieved on June 1st,
2011, from issues & controversies database.
