1. How would you define 'hate speech?'
Discriminating people or a group of people by written or verbal communication on the basis of superficial stereotypes, such as gender, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation or disabilities.
2. Would you advocate placing limits on free expression (as many European countries do) in order to deal with the problems posed by hate speech? If so, how would you define those limits?
Freedom of speech should be bound by certain limits to avoid hate speech. The limitations should mainly focus on stopping any form of hate speech which forms or motivates bigoted societies or groups. This may include banning websites, illegalizing public speaking and publishing written articles which grows hatred towards religions, …show more content…
According to 14th amendment, all the citizens of United States should obtain equal protection by the laws. But, when hate speech discriminates certain cultures, religions and promotes racism and discredit the victims’ voices so, it contradicts with the 14th amendment. Therefore, 1st amendment can be modified to promote equal rights by placing limits on hate speech.
3. Should we attempt to reach an international consensus on how to define hate speech and on the standards to be applied in dealing with it? Why or why not?
No. Because, many countries have passed laws to limit hate speech which suits for the societies in those countries, while promoting the international law for freedom of speech which was formed by United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Therefore, United States of America should create and pass their own laws which is suitable for the societies in U.S.A to avoid hate speech. For instance, some words and phrases which are offensive in some counties might be acceptable in other …show more content…
Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
I think the standards that apply to hate-related material should be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography. Because, pornography does not promote hate towards anything it is just another way of entertainment for some people. Furthermore, pornography websites do the exact opposite of hate-speech websites by reducing rapes and sex crimes in many countries. The following example will provide evidence to prove my point.
“An experiment done by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues answers the controversial question, “Could making pornography legal lead to lower rates of sex crimes?” According to that experiment the results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, and U.S.A), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan.” – [Springer. (2010, November 30). Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 3, 2017 from
Discriminating people or a group of people by written or verbal communication on the basis of superficial stereotypes, such as gender, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation or disabilities.
2. Would you advocate placing limits on free expression (as many European countries do) in order to deal with the problems posed by hate speech? If so, how would you define those limits?
Freedom of speech should be bound by certain limits to avoid hate speech. The limitations should mainly focus on stopping any form of hate speech which forms or motivates bigoted societies or groups. This may include banning websites, illegalizing public speaking and publishing written articles which grows hatred towards religions, …show more content…
According to 14th amendment, all the citizens of United States should obtain equal protection by the laws. But, when hate speech discriminates certain cultures, religions and promotes racism and discredit the victims’ voices so, it contradicts with the 14th amendment. Therefore, 1st amendment can be modified to promote equal rights by placing limits on hate speech.
3. Should we attempt to reach an international consensus on how to define hate speech and on the standards to be applied in dealing with it? Why or why not?
No. Because, many countries have passed laws to limit hate speech which suits for the societies in those countries, while promoting the international law for freedom of speech which was formed by United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Therefore, United States of America should create and pass their own laws which is suitable for the societies in U.S.A to avoid hate speech. For instance, some words and phrases which are offensive in some counties might be acceptable in other …show more content…
Should the standards that apply to hate-related material be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography?
I think the standards that apply to hate-related material should be different from the standards that apply to other objectionable material such as pornography. Because, pornography does not promote hate towards anything it is just another way of entertainment for some people. Furthermore, pornography websites do the exact opposite of hate-speech websites by reducing rapes and sex crimes in many countries. The following example will provide evidence to prove my point.
“An experiment done by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues answers the controversial question, “Could making pornography legal lead to lower rates of sex crimes?” According to that experiment the results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, and U.S.A), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan.” – [Springer. (2010, November 30). Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 3, 2017 from