Should Freedom of Speech be revised in the United States?

Question

After the hate rhetoric spewed by Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, and now Tim Hardaway, should Freedom of Speech be revised in the United States?

Should the Government make "Hate Speech" illegal? I am in support of this.

Freedom of Speech in implied only when speaking out against the Government or for a social cause. But, if you speak out against a group that lives within the U.S. it should be made illegal.

It should be made illegal to speak agaisnt blacks, gays, jews, arabs, naitve americans, asians, and hispanics or any other minority who lives with this country.

However, a person living in private can blast blacks, gays, jews, etc as much as they want as they are not publicly announcing their hate, and they cannot be charged with a conviction if they can prove their hate to be true. This will allow a forum of debate.

I am in favor of this...I think this sounds like a really good idea. I hope the government looks into this.

Serious, well thoughtout intelligent responses only please.

Hate Speech:is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation and appearance (such as height and weight). The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

You can still have freedom of speech, but, if you speak out against a group pf people and hide behind the ghuise of freedom of speech, then where do as that end? Since when does my freedom allow me "freedom" to call somebody a ****** or a ******?

I never said I hated anybody. I don't agree with people speaking out against groups in this country. People in the US should lead a dignified life.

I'm curious to know how minorities, and gays and lesbians in this country would feel sonce the all of my answers are from white people...probably heterosexual.

Thanks CJ. W well thought out, truthful answer. All of these answer's blow, and did not see the point I was making at all. One even stated she was proud to state her hate for the whole world. This is why we need to the government to step in.

Answer 1

The only things the First Amendment doesn't protect against when it comes to freedom of speech are threats and forming a militia with intent to overthrow the government of the United States. Any threat, typically against a governmental figure or group (not just limited to the government though), is not allowed under the First Amendment. You can say anything you want about anyone because of our First Amendment rights (which aren't easy to just amend when needed) however, if you do say something slanderous or write something slanderous about someone with malicious intent and it can be prove in a court of law, you could be subject to penalties and fines under slander, libel, and defamation of character.

Answer 2

I could not disagree more.

Who is to say what is defined as "hate speech" and what isn't? When you start defining what kind of speech can be allowed and what can't, you're treading way too close to total deprivation of the provisions of the First Amendment to me. After you define one set of words or set of statements as "hate speech," what's to prevent someone else in a position of authority from coming up with their own definitions and implementing them? Before you know it, free speech will be a complete thing of the past.

From the text of your question:

"Freedom of Speech in implied only when speaking out against the Government or for a social cause. But, if you speak out against a group that lives within the U.S. it should be made illegal.

It should be made illegal to speak agaisnt blacks, gays, jews, arabs, naitve americans, asians, and hispanics or any other minority who lives with this country. "

Basically, what you're saying is that you think the government should outlaw opinions and the right to voice them. That's one giant step towards a dictatorship, don't you realize that? And, using the text I pasted as an example, why not make it a crime to speak out against white people as well? Why just the minorities? Are you saying that there's NO ONE out there that EVER speaks badly of the white race? Surely you're not THAT naive, are you?

All in all, this is one of the most horrendously BAD ideas that I think I've ever heard, and I hope the government totally ignores it.

Answer 3

I hate it when people make ignorant statements too, but I don't think making "Hate Speech" illegal is the answer. I would be afraid of a "slippery slope" with that. Once you've set the precedent for revising free speech, who knows where it will go. Maybe a measure like this would eventually lead to a measure making it illegal to critisize the government.

Also, dissent is a good thing, even if it is ignorant and hateful in nature. The statements made by Richards, Gibson, and Hardaway actually do have positive results. They get people talking about these issues, and make us realize that there still is a great deal of prejudice out there and we have not yet progressed as far as some would like to believe. Realizing this is important, because otherwise our progress would stagnate. Before the statements by Richards, a lot of people claimed racism in America had been done away with. Some still do. We need examples of racism and other forms of hate to remind us that we still have work to do.

Answer 4

Hate speech is not covered under freedom of speech, given that you are inciting hate.

I am not racist however, I am a firm believer that we should be able to speak out opinions openly and honestly. There is no fine way to draw the line on this one. Should it be illegal to speak out against fat people, smokers, stupid people? Restricting out rights of speech is never a good idea. As much as it pains me to say it people are entitled to their opinions and thus entitled to their racism. As long as they are not physically taking it out on somebody or knowingly distributing propaganda, it is not a crime.

When we give the government control over out speech there is no to stop the restrictions that will be made. Before long it will be illegal to speak unfavorable of the government. I am not overly interested in a totalitarian society. Giving up the most fundamental freedom of speech is the first step to it.

People don't say nice things sometimes. We have all made a judgmental comment at some point in our lives and will have thus committed a crime. Imagine the back log on the criminal justice system?

Answer 5

i disagree completely. i should be allowed to say what ever the heck i want about people. Just because there are less people of a certain group in the country doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to say things against them. actually, if you say something against a majority then you offending more people, which is worse right? if you make 'hate speech' illegal then if has to also be against whites, Christians, woman, men and everyone else out there! Should we no longer be allowed to voice our dislike of someone? (even though we hardly can now) If i don't like you then too bad. i have that right and i can tell it to the world if it pleases me.

Answer 6

No.

Limits on freedom of speech will eventually grow, and then it will effect everyone. No one can define "hate speech". Because it starts with the well meaning people wanting to do well, but then I call someone a *****, is that hate speech? A woman might say yes to that. It is a hard line to draw at a certain point.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Those people have to realize that yes - they have the right to say whatever they like about whomever they choose to. But they also have to deal with what happens in direct consequences to what they stated in public. So I think it all comes around in the end. I mean, the three you stated are not exactly enjoying any benefit due to their idiocies, now are they? They are paying for their stupidity, and that is enough for me.

We must allow everyone the right to state what they like to. Even the idiots deserve their fifteen minutes - because then we can spot who they are and ridicule them. THAT is the American way. . .

"I may not agree with everything you say, but I will die for your right to say it. . ."

Answer 7

No. I think it is a slippery slope. And remember, you would be outlawing MEChA and many liberal/ethnic organiztions (and politicians), too. Whatever changes made would have to be universally applied. So if someone went into government and people thought they were dangerous to the country and discussed that, what would stop it from being 'hate speech'?

There is already provision against 'inciting violence' and I think we should stop there. Infringing on freedom of speech in worship of the PC is very, very dangerous to our liberties.

Answer 8

We do not need to criminalize speech. The fact that the people you mentioned paid a price for their offensive speech is good enough. We as a society do not need to put people in jail for every offense against society. We can and do punish people in other ways such as voicing our distaste for such comments. Additionally, the fact is that those who speak out are not the real danger, those who harbor these feelings but never speak about them are the ones that are truly dangerous. Criminalizing speech does not change thoughts or beliefs, it simply mildly alters conduct.

Answer 9

No. As soon as you start to limit free speech in one way, 'good' arguments will be made to limit it in other ways. Perhaps any dissent about the President's policies in Iraq will be outlawed "to protect the morale of our troops". There are many ways to spin controls, but they are controls even so.

Now speech isn't completely unlimited. You cannot say something untrue that damages a person's reputation - that's slander and will cost you a lot of money in court. You cannot yell Fire! in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire. You cannot use speech to provoke violence - that is already illegal. So there are limits, but limiting speech we find distasteful is the wrong road for us all to follow.

Answer 10

No we shouldn't limit Freedom of Speech, and it's not necessary.Think about it, Tim Hardaway, Mel Gibson and Michael Richards screwed themselves royally with their hateful speech. It cost each of them in the eyes of the public and in their pocketbooks. Michael Richards has probably destroyed his career with his vitriol. Let them have the rope to hang themselves. When you start limiting our freed om you start down a very slippery slope that can end up with unintended consequences.