Many wonder whether free speech laws in democratic societies should have limits. Discussions surrounding recent events, including the deadly attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo, raise questions about whether more regulation on what we publish can create a more harmonious society; or if, on the contrary, free expression needs even more legal protection, so as to ensure this fundamental right of free people is not undermined. There are many ways to evaluate the freedom of speech and what it should look like. For instance, in The Harm in Hate Speech, Jeremy Waldron argues that the United States should consider regulating hate speech. I do believe, under certain circumstances, there are areas where we (I speak as an American)
…show more content…
Waldron presents dignity as a public good to which all citizens are equally entitled, defining it as, “the social standing, the fundamentals of basic reputation that entitle [persons] to be treated as equals in the ordinary operations of society” (5). Thus the conclusion is drawn that dignitary harm prevents the victims from accessing equal status as citizens, which merits government intervention. Though it is important to Waldron to point out that his concern isn’t simply causing offense and the hurting of feelings, which do not qualify as group libel (106). He takes his argument a step further in emphasizing the public aspect of the way hate speech alters an environment through bringing about public disorder, a state Western societies must presumably seek to mitigate …show more content…
Surely the emotional torment experienced by mourners of fallen U.S. soldiers when members of the Westboro (Kansas) Baptist Church picket their funerals is an example, but Waldron doesn’t go in this direction, nor does he target speech that could cause a
Waldron presents dignity as a public good to which all citizens are equally entitled, defining it as, “the social standing, the fundamentals of basic reputation that entitle [persons] to be treated as equals in the ordinary operations of society” (5). Thus the conclusion is drawn that dignitary harm prevents the victims from accessing equal status as citizens, which merits government intervention. Though it is important to Waldron to point out that his concern isn’t simply causing offense and the hurting of feelings, which do not qualify as group libel (106). He takes his argument a step further in emphasizing the public aspect of the way hate speech alters an environment through bringing about public disorder, a state Western societies must presumably seek to mitigate …show more content…
Surely the emotional torment experienced by mourners of fallen U.S. soldiers when members of the Westboro (Kansas) Baptist Church picket their funerals is an example, but Waldron doesn’t go in this direction, nor does he target speech that could cause a