Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Hate Speech and Word Police
One of the most basic freedoms of humankind is the freedom of speech. Democratic societies boast about their citizens' right to speak freely. Freedom has always been a controversial topic to people, but once we begin to pursue it, we will find the process being far from a simple one. Everyone has come across the notion of propaganda at least one in their lives. Propaganda relies on the power of words. Propaganda has changed popular attitudes and beliefs, it has helped control people's minds to the point when it came to joining a war or attacking a country, for example. There should be no doubt about the power of words. Yet, there is still a very lively debate among professionals and nonprofessionals alike when it comes to the freedom of speech in a democratic society. More precisely, the issue of boundaries is one that causes a lot of controversy among those who study language or the effect language has on a society at any given time.
What is called "hate speech" counts among those types of speeches that exceeded the legal boundary in the U.S. Thus, one is likely to be held accountable in front of the law for having used this kind of speech publicly. In such cases, the First Amendment doesn't protect freedom anymore. In Lakoff's essay, "hate speech" is defined...
Therefore, we will understand the appropriate "limits" of freedom are necessary. Lakoff underlines that when it come to what is known as "P.C.," that is "politically correctness," there are a set of coordinates that need to be set clear. She questions the value of p.c. when it comes to eradicating racist behavior, for example. By underlining the risk of encouraging hypocritical attitudes under the cover of being p.c., Lakoff point out the fact that the class issue and differences in class attitudes and manifestations related to racism is another variable that could change the whole purpose of banning "hate speech." Yes, the notion "p.c." arouse from the need to protect those who were holding a different opinion, or race or anything different, no matter the context, but Lakoff warns against the dangers of actually offering those who intend to harm others by means of their speech the perfect tools of camouflage by using the excuse of being "p.c.."
In his essay, Kakutani takes the matter further and talks about the "words police." Like Lakoff, he agrees that the intentions behind those who favor "p.c." are noble and unquestionable. Yes, because everyone agrees to be living in a free,…
"[T]here remains a distinction between autonomy, the ability to think for oneself, and self-expression, the communicating of one's thoughts to others. Both are important components of our interest in free speech" (Lichtenberg, 336). Still some believe that any infringement upon the media would diminish the amount of true information disseminated into society. Truth, though, is filled with ambiguity and is intangible -- the "truth" of the media story is based
Freedom of Speech History of Case Gitlow v. New York Gitlow v.New York was a decision that was made by the supreme court of the United States on June 8, 1925 which ruled that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States extended the reach of limitations of the federal government authority that that had been set in the First amendment. The specific provisions were protection of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a human right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in the worlds of public and private employment, employers have some limited rights with regard to the things their employees can say. These generally differ for public and private employees. The main basis for this difference is the fact that public employees offer their services to the Government, which in turn is to act in
Freedom of Speech and Art "Freedom of speech' is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States. The constitution grants complete freedom of speech under the First Amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
Freedom of Speech In 1776, the United States Constitution was signed to protect the freedoms of every American and to solidify the rights that so many were currently fighting for. It was the government that implemented ways for everyone to have equal rights to express what ever they deemed appropriate without the fear of there being repercussions for their actions. That is no longer the case. The government now, instead of
Which is the better course of action, Lawrence might ask himself. Should we censor the Westboro Baptist Church and forbid them their right to free speech, or should we allow them to express their wacky, and perhaps injurious views, and fight back with words of compassion, caring, and support. Just because we would like to make a knee-jerk, reactionary law and censor them does not make it the right