Is “Censorship” of Hate Speech Necessary?
Current Issues: Civil Liberties defines hate speech as speech that degrades “a person’s ethnicity, language, religion, political views, or socioeconomic class” (Roleff, p.). Jeremy Waldron, a professor at New York University, wrote his book, The Harm in Hate Speech, on the thesis that hate speech “undermines the equal dignity of individual members of vulnerable minorities.” Any “well-ordered society,” according to Waldron, should restrict hate speech. He uses two examples to demonstrate the destructive effects of hate speech throughout history: Nazism in Europe and segregation in the United States (Mchangma).
While Waldron is prudent in suggesting that well-ordered societies “should not tolerate hate speech,” that does not guarantee that a society free of hate speech will remain a free society. Unlike what Tanya Cohen writes in ThoughtCatalog.com, the United States does not need to “get tough” on hate speech. Cohen, a self-proclaimed “human-rights activist,” claims that since “all other countries have laws against hate speech,” America needs to jump into the bandwagon and pass what she calls “human rights …show more content…
66% of Americans believe that people must be allowed to say offensive things about minority groups in public. In contrast, 70% of Germans, 62% of Italians, and 50% of Poles believe that the government should prevent people from making offensive statements against minority groups. The French are divided on the issue; 48% of the French want to see the government take action against hate speech and 51% believe that people should be able to make offensive statements against minority groups. However, only 38% in Britain and 40% in Spain support governmental action that would prevent people from saying offensive things about minority groups
Current Issues: Civil Liberties defines hate speech as speech that degrades “a person’s ethnicity, language, religion, political views, or socioeconomic class” (Roleff, p.). Jeremy Waldron, a professor at New York University, wrote his book, The Harm in Hate Speech, on the thesis that hate speech “undermines the equal dignity of individual members of vulnerable minorities.” Any “well-ordered society,” according to Waldron, should restrict hate speech. He uses two examples to demonstrate the destructive effects of hate speech throughout history: Nazism in Europe and segregation in the United States (Mchangma).
While Waldron is prudent in suggesting that well-ordered societies “should not tolerate hate speech,” that does not guarantee that a society free of hate speech will remain a free society. Unlike what Tanya Cohen writes in ThoughtCatalog.com, the United States does not need to “get tough” on hate speech. Cohen, a self-proclaimed “human-rights activist,” claims that since “all other countries have laws against hate speech,” America needs to jump into the bandwagon and pass what she calls “human rights …show more content…
66% of Americans believe that people must be allowed to say offensive things about minority groups in public. In contrast, 70% of Germans, 62% of Italians, and 50% of Poles believe that the government should prevent people from making offensive statements against minority groups. The French are divided on the issue; 48% of the French want to see the government take action against hate speech and 51% believe that people should be able to make offensive statements against minority groups. However, only 38% in Britain and 40% in Spain support governmental action that would prevent people from saying offensive things about minority groups