The Need to Protect Hateful and Offensive Speech
In today’s society, information travels almost as fast as light, thanks to the invention and development of internet technologies, however, this enables the dissemination of bad ideas, and hateful and offensive rhetoric across country lines faster than ever before. This ability to share ideas and find others with beliefs like yours has been blamed for the rise of the Islamic State, deepening political divides, and an overwhelming feeling of a growing collective feeling of helplessness. This growing uneasiness has led to an increase in hateful rhetoric online which many have called for the banning or curtailing of due to its incendiary and divisive nature. Despite the calls from American citizens …show more content…
In an effort to fight racism, France enacted the Pleven Law in 1972. The Pleven law made racial discrimination and racist speech illegal. The penalty for breaking this and other hate speech bans range from fines to the loss of voting rights for up to five years and even one year in jail. In Canada, there are many laws in each province that limit, what is often referred to as, “Hate propaganda” under various laws referred to as Human Rights codes or the Human Right Act. However, there is no denying that these laws limit the expression of hateful speech, it also limits political discourse and prevents the dissemination of information that is not favored by the Canadian government. In his article on Salon.com, Greenwald discusses a peculiar letter sent to Ann Coulter, American political commentator, writer, and lawyer, from the Vice-President of the University of Ottawa, Francois Houle. In this letter, he writes to remind or inform her of the “reasonable restricts” that the Canadian federal and provincial government have placed on the freedom of expression (Greenwald). Greenwald argues that it is not reasonable to the government the power to criminalize express opinions that they don’t like or in which they are in …show more content…
First, it allows the opportunity to discuss discriminatory problems in open and inclusive manner without fear of criminal prosecution. In the belief that it is easier to change a stated opinion then one that goes unknown and thus unchallenged. Secondly, by protecting hateful speech and offensive speech, American society can ensure an opportunity for a well-informed electorate as difficult and unpopular ideas will have a chance to be heard. The limitations in French society does not, necessarily, allow for this opportunity. Lastly, by properly defining protected offensive speech, it could enable the vigorous prosecution of non-protected speech, such as immediate incitement which, although it is not protected, is rarely prosecuted in
In today’s society, information travels almost as fast as light, thanks to the invention and development of internet technologies, however, this enables the dissemination of bad ideas, and hateful and offensive rhetoric across country lines faster than ever before. This ability to share ideas and find others with beliefs like yours has been blamed for the rise of the Islamic State, deepening political divides, and an overwhelming feeling of a growing collective feeling of helplessness. This growing uneasiness has led to an increase in hateful rhetoric online which many have called for the banning or curtailing of due to its incendiary and divisive nature. Despite the calls from American citizens …show more content…
In an effort to fight racism, France enacted the Pleven Law in 1972. The Pleven law made racial discrimination and racist speech illegal. The penalty for breaking this and other hate speech bans range from fines to the loss of voting rights for up to five years and even one year in jail. In Canada, there are many laws in each province that limit, what is often referred to as, “Hate propaganda” under various laws referred to as Human Rights codes or the Human Right Act. However, there is no denying that these laws limit the expression of hateful speech, it also limits political discourse and prevents the dissemination of information that is not favored by the Canadian government. In his article on Salon.com, Greenwald discusses a peculiar letter sent to Ann Coulter, American political commentator, writer, and lawyer, from the Vice-President of the University of Ottawa, Francois Houle. In this letter, he writes to remind or inform her of the “reasonable restricts” that the Canadian federal and provincial government have placed on the freedom of expression (Greenwald). Greenwald argues that it is not reasonable to the government the power to criminalize express opinions that they don’t like or in which they are in …show more content…
First, it allows the opportunity to discuss discriminatory problems in open and inclusive manner without fear of criminal prosecution. In the belief that it is easier to change a stated opinion then one that goes unknown and thus unchallenged. Secondly, by protecting hateful speech and offensive speech, American society can ensure an opportunity for a well-informed electorate as difficult and unpopular ideas will have a chance to be heard. The limitations in French society does not, necessarily, allow for this opportunity. Lastly, by properly defining protected offensive speech, it could enable the vigorous prosecution of non-protected speech, such as immediate incitement which, although it is not protected, is rarely prosecuted in