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 thing or the better thing to do. Also, it doesn't get rid of the racist feelings of the Church members, and it's likely that they would not keep quiet, regardless of the law. An instructive example is Germany, where it is illegal to make Anti-Semitic comments. Just this month, fashion designer John Galliano was caught on tape making Nazi references and anti-Semitic comments. He has now been charged with a crime. The woman he was talking to at the bar was indeed Jewish, but she was not physically harmed by Galliano's remarks, and what good will the trial do in changing Galliano's mind about Jews? Obviously, the law didn't prevent him from making the comments in the first place, so I wonder at its efficacy. Laws in Germany have also not prevented the rise of neo-Nazi groups within the country, even though the laws had the absolute best intentions of preventing another rise in anti-Semitism that lead to the Holocaust. Ideas will still flow freely, however, and people will make their hate speech more private and secluded from the public eye. This does not lessen the degree or the amount of hate, however. Over the history of the United States, from the adoption of the Bill of rights...
it's a delicate balance we strike when we aim to weigh the rights of free speech against the rights of those who may be harmed by vicious and racist speech. Each has rights, and taking from one does not inevitable protect the other. The students that Charles Lawrence wants to protect from hate speech are certainly sympathetic in their desires, and I sympathize with Lawrence desire to rid the campus of hate speech through censorship, but the price is just too high.
The real words of King? "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." (quoted in: Husseini) The final major flaw is that Clinton addresses the black ministers with a severe racial hubris -- he never makes any mention of the racial differences that
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
Speech Pathology Expert Speech Language Pathologists and Acupuncture as a Cure for Aphasia This assignment has provided me with an opportunity to present my position on a current controversial issue within my chosen profession. The concern that even the experts and supports of a topic disagree would definitely be tested with this issue. The chosen topic for this report will in fact be highly controversial in the near future and for some
Caselaw.findlaw.com);in Guiles v. Marineau (2006) (No. 05-0327 2nd Cir. Court) the Court of Appeals ruled that the school "violated a student's free speech" by disciplining him for wearing a T-shirt that criticized George W. Bush and used images of drugs and alcohol (www.NSBA.org);Roberts alluded to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (No. 86-836) (484 U.S. 260) (1988), in which a student newspaper was censored because of an article on pregnancy, as justification for
That does not mean that a person who supports the right to burn the flag supports the burning of the flag. As an American, I think the idea of someone desecrating a flag, and, by extension, desecrating America, would be a very disturbing one. However, political speech is going to deserve to at least a portion of the audience. 5. Most laws prevent employers from refusing to hire people because
Authors Donald Lively and Russell Weaver describe Hustler Magazine as Falwell's "antagonist (p. 79)," no doubt representing for Falwell abuses of our Constitutional freedoms. "In 1983, Hustler Magazine decided to parody Falwell using a Campari Liqueur advertisement. The actual Campari ads portrayed interviews with various celebrities about their 'first times.' Although the advertisement actually focused on the first time that the celebrities had sampled Campari, the ads portrayed the double
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now