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

abominate Speech - Legal, but Unnecessary     While a empower and concise definition remains forthcoming, it is easier to establish what hate linguistic process is not. nauseate run-in is wrong but healthy in the United States of the States mostly because we substantiate the freedom of voice communication. But the First Amendment exists precisely to foster the most offensive and controversial run-in from government suppression. In this case, large number are allowed to use hate speech and not get arrested or any legal actions against them. The best way to counter obnoxious speech much(prenominal) as this is with more speech. Persuasion, not violence, is the solution to this problem (Jouhari).      Hate speech has been mistakenly tied with other(a) categories of speech both legal and illegal. One should avoid confusing hate speech with something it is not because other legal implications might come into play. Hate speech is not a bominable speech. According to the guidelines of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) for improper speech, which define indecent speech as, "limited to language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as much by the coetaneous community standards for the broadcast means, sexual activities or organs," then 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 offend words by which their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a look to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality (Pullma).      There is no choice but to continue tolerating intolerance, until the Constitution itself would be amended, which is an event supposed(prenominal) to occur. In the mean while, individual cases and court opinions add more problems to the already outgrowth problem called the constitutionality of hate speech. Hate speech on the Internet is champion 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, younger 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 unprovocative and effective. Just like that in the Letter from Birmingham Jail that Dr. King wrote to the Clergyman. He never used any speech to insult or put together down any race or social group. He wrote what he believed without this type of speech 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, on a lower floor such a government as this, think 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 financial aid 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.