What is hate speech? In today’s society, many people struggle to distinguish whether or not hate speech is an opinion or a crime. While the freedom of speech is protected by many democratic societies, many argue that hate speech is a criminal activity that leads to discrimination and violence. In the article “Argument – Should Hate Speech Be a Crime?” authors Joyce Arthur and Peter Tatchell use different rhetorical techniques in order to debate whether or not hate speech should be considered a crime in democratic societies. Throughout the article, Tatchell argues that hate speech cannot be criminalized because it is simply one’s opinion. Meanwhile, Arthur argues that while hate speech is an opinion, it should be criminalized because the effects
…show more content…
Firstly, Arthur uses emotional appeals by creating a sense of pride and obligation. For example, she says, “A consensus exists in most Western democracies on the legitimacy of using laws to punish or inhibit hate speech, in order to prevent hate crimes, provide redress to victims, support vulnerable groups, protect human rights, and promote values of equality and respect” (Arthur). Arthur believes that both the government and the citizens of the United States have an obligation to protect society. By criminalizing hate speech, the government would be promoting the ideal values of American society, such as equality and security for all. Arthur appeals to reader’s emotions by making it seem as if they have an obligation to uphold these values. Arthur also uses pathos in order to create sympathy for victims of hate speech. She explains, “Decades of hateful anti-abortion rhetoric in the U.S. led to assassinations of providers, because hate speech is a precursor to violence” (Arthur). By mentioning assassinations, Arthur proves how quickly hate speech can escalate into a more dangerous situation. The connection between hate speech and violence also helps to create a call for action amongst the readers. By comparing hate speech to violence, Arthur allows the audience to feel obligated to take action and protect those who are victimized by hate speech. Arthur’s use of pathos is effective because not only does she create a sense of obligation and sympathy, but she also makes a call for
Firstly, Arthur uses emotional appeals by creating a sense of pride and obligation. For example, she says, “A consensus exists in most Western democracies on the legitimacy of using laws to punish or inhibit hate speech, in order to prevent hate crimes, provide redress to victims, support vulnerable groups, protect human rights, and promote values of equality and respect” (Arthur). Arthur believes that both the government and the citizens of the United States have an obligation to protect society. By criminalizing hate speech, the government would be promoting the ideal values of American society, such as equality and security for all. Arthur appeals to reader’s emotions by making it seem as if they have an obligation to uphold these values. Arthur also uses pathos in order to create sympathy for victims of hate speech. She explains, “Decades of hateful anti-abortion rhetoric in the U.S. led to assassinations of providers, because hate speech is a precursor to violence” (Arthur). By mentioning assassinations, Arthur proves how quickly hate speech can escalate into a more dangerous situation. The connection between hate speech and violence also helps to create a call for action amongst the readers. By comparing hate speech to violence, Arthur allows the audience to feel obligated to take action and protect those who are victimized by hate speech. Arthur’s use of pathos is effective because not only does she create a sense of obligation and sympathy, but she also makes a call for