Freedom Of Speech Vs Hate Speech Essay

Would you defend the right of someone to tell lies about you if you had little opportunity to fight back? Hate speech is typically born of false premises that lead to prejudice, and it tends to target groups speakers perceive as particularly vulnerable. To combat such prejudice, some have proposed laws which would limit the right to engage in discriminatory speech. Even so, hate speech remains largely legal, at least within the United States: banning any form of individual expression – as objectionable as some forms may be – runs counter to the democratic principle of freedom of speech that the government should uphold, according to some others. Nonetheless, the government should regulate hate speech in order to protect the rights and the safety …show more content…
In America, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech without exceptions. Therefore, no instance of speech should be considered a crime unless it can be proven beyond any doubt that it will cause suffering, according to opponents. However, there is evidence of psychological harm caused by hate speech; such harm hinders victims’ ability to exert their rights (Harell 410). Truly equal opportunity is thus undermined by hate speech. In addition, there are precedents for circumventing First Amendment laws: Hughes cites four Supreme Court cases in which schools were allowed to restrict the speech of their students (217). Indeed, the Constitution should not be seen as untouchable if it had to be amended in the first place. Admittedly, improving education on prejudice may prove to be more effective at reducing violence than stricter speech laws in the long term. Still, such laws can help marginalized groups in the near future, before new generations have an opportunity to reshape their cultures. There is enough proof of hate speech negatively impacting democratic societies to support hate speech regulation without giving way to further exceptions to free