Did you know that only 7,121 people and 5,818 incidents make up the 3% of hate crimes that are reported? SIRS data base reports that a hate crime is defined as a crime that targets an individual, group, or organization because a real or perceived difference in race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or national origin. Despite the many hate groups in America, the government promotes tolerance through legislation and education. The Matthew Shepard Act signed by Obama in 2009 was an expansion of federal jurisdiction over hate crimes. This paper will examine viewpoint one, two, and my viewpoint on is there a need for hate crime legislation. To begin with, viewpoint one believes hate crime laws are necessary to
…show more content…
Firstly, law makers are taking hate crimes seriously. For example, Anthony Faiola, journalist with Washington Post, shares Germany wants to pass a bill to force social media site to remove fake news that encourages hate, or they will be force to pay a fine up to $53,000,000 (Faiola). Thus, this point proves law makers are creating new legislation for the prevention of hate crimes. Secondly, there are many things that are hate inciting. For instance, Faiola, reports these social media outlets will have 24 hours to remove the post that include hate speech, child pornography, and incitements of terrorism. Therefore, this point proves these topics all can cause hate speech and need to be removed. Thirdly, media outlets need to take hate speech more serious. To illustrate, Faiola, cites Facebook removed 39% of the criminal content that was reported and Twitter removed 1% of criminal content that was reported. Hence, this point proves these media outlets do not take hate crimes seriously. For all these reasons, hate crime laws need to be expanded to social media. In summary, this paper explored viewpoint one, viewpoint two, and my viewpoint on is there a need for hate crime legislation. Viewpoint one explored how hate crime laws are needed to protect society. However, viewpoint two explored how hate crime legislation prevents freedom of speech. My viewpoint explored how law makers not only in America, but overseas are taking hate crime seriously. Daily there are 650 examples of hate crime, but there are only 19
Firstly, law makers are taking hate crimes seriously. For example, Anthony Faiola, journalist with Washington Post, shares Germany wants to pass a bill to force social media site to remove fake news that encourages hate, or they will be force to pay a fine up to $53,000,000 (Faiola). Thus, this point proves law makers are creating new legislation for the prevention of hate crimes. Secondly, there are many things that are hate inciting. For instance, Faiola, reports these social media outlets will have 24 hours to remove the post that include hate speech, child pornography, and incitements of terrorism. Therefore, this point proves these topics all can cause hate speech and need to be removed. Thirdly, media outlets need to take hate speech more serious. To illustrate, Faiola, cites Facebook removed 39% of the criminal content that was reported and Twitter removed 1% of criminal content that was reported. Hence, this point proves these media outlets do not take hate crimes seriously. For all these reasons, hate crime laws need to be expanded to social media. In summary, this paper explored viewpoint one, viewpoint two, and my viewpoint on is there a need for hate crime legislation. Viewpoint one explored how hate crime laws are needed to protect society. However, viewpoint two explored how hate crime legislation prevents freedom of speech. My viewpoint explored how law makers not only in America, but overseas are taking hate crime seriously. Daily there are 650 examples of hate crime, but there are only 19