In Chapter 7 it discusses how there is no criminal remedy for abusive speech. This means that although speech that targets groups of people due to race, color, or religion may be offensive and typically are socially unacceptable this type of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Although there have been movements to try to make racist speech a specific crime - the Supreme Court has strongly rebuffed each time. In the most recent reaffirmation by the Supreme Court regarding hate speech the court found that
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” (The Washington Post)
This position has constantly been held by the Supreme Court but people still feel as though their speech is somehow censored by our laws. I have often seen posts on social media or discussion on the TV from individuals that claim their freedom of speech is being restricted. People often confused an adverse reaction from the public as a restriction on their speech - even though what they are saying is perfectly legal. I think it is a bit of a far stretch to directly associate the First Amendment with how people in the community react to demeaning speech. Although the First Amendment legally protects your right to expression it does not protect you against consequences or criticism from those that find your speech distasteful.
In an article by the Atlantic, a Twitter account was made solely to identify protestors participated in the Charlottesville protests and alert their employers or the colleges they attend. The protestors affected by this see the action taken by the Twitter account as a way to silence their speech. However a lot of people that supported the Twitter account saw it as a way of finding and dissimulating information and amplifying calls to action. People often mistakenly associate events like this with infringing on their First Amendment Rights. However what these people fail to realize that their rights are not being restricted at all. The government cannot restrict your speech however this does not mean that racist/hate speech will not receive criticism or distasteful in an employers eyes. Employers, institutions, and other groups of people can decide what environment they want to surround themselves with and have the right to express themselves just as openly as well.
Volokh, Eugene. “The Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: There Is No ‘Hate Speech’ Exception to the First Amendment.” The Washington Post, 19 June 2017. Web. October 10.
White, Gillian B. “Is Being a White Supremacist Grounds for Firing?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Aug. 2017. Web. October 10.
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” (The Washington Post)
This position has constantly been held by the Supreme Court but people still feel as though their speech is somehow censored by our laws. I have often seen posts on social media or discussion on the TV from individuals that claim their freedom of speech is being restricted. People often confused an adverse reaction from the public as a restriction on their speech - even though what they are saying is perfectly legal. I think it is a bit of a far stretch to directly associate the First Amendment with how people in the community react to demeaning speech. Although the First Amendment legally protects your right to expression it does not protect you against consequences or criticism from those that find your speech distasteful.
In an article by the Atlantic, a Twitter account was made solely to identify protestors participated in the Charlottesville protests and alert their employers or the colleges they attend. The protestors affected by this see the action taken by the Twitter account as a way to silence their speech. However a lot of people that supported the Twitter account saw it as a way of finding and dissimulating information and amplifying calls to action. People often mistakenly associate events like this with infringing on their First Amendment Rights. However what these people fail to realize that their rights are not being restricted at all. The government cannot restrict your speech however this does not mean that racist/hate speech will not receive criticism or distasteful in an employers eyes. Employers, institutions, and other groups of people can decide what environment they want to surround themselves with and have the right to express themselves just as openly as well.
Volokh, Eugene. “The Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: There Is No ‘Hate Speech’ Exception to the First Amendment.” The Washington Post, 19 June 2017. Web. October 10.
White, Gillian B. “Is Being a White Supremacist Grounds for Firing?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Aug. 2017. Web. October 10.
I agree that the government is not obligated to restrict opinions, discussions, and other sort of speech which may oppress a group's formation of ideas, but in other ways social righteousness may be not the best way to address hate speech.
ReplyDeleteYou happen to bring up the example of Charlottesville. To expand on it, Republican Senator Dean Heller of Nevada was "outed" by Twitter in a photo that came up at the Charlottesville rally resembling the politician. The Senator quickly de-escalated the assumption calling it false. At the same time, you brought up an incident about others at the rally being correctly identified to suffer the social repercussions to it. Peter Cvjetanovic, a college student in Nevada, whom attended the march is facing expulsion. Many protesters similar to Cvjetanovic after Charlottesville are faced with backlash to their right of freedom to express their right wing opinions while repenting their actions on that day.
Although you are correct people do have the right to be in a comforting space while restraining those that disrupt that flow, there should be a better protocol to right wing theorists and white supremacists to address social banters. Examples like Senator Dean Heller who was falsely accuse reveals social errors however examples like Cvjetanovic reputations are damaged beyond repair due to social media. I believe in my opinion there should be some sort of protocol issued to deal with. I agree that at this time since there is no social protocol social justice on social media has to do for now. In the end, confusing or not the First Amendment may allow this speech but public opinion has the last say on the matter, so I do basically agree with everything you say.
Well, the government may not be allowed to, but that doesn't stop them a lot of the time. President Donald trump loves to neglect and ignore, as well as kick people and reporters out if they say something he doesn't like, and ion the end hate speech, is speech someone doesn't like, period, down to its core, which is why we have laws. Do you think that donald trump speaking at a hate speech group (on tv, news) is good or bad? why?
ReplyDelete