| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HATE SPEECH": |
|
|
Hate Speech, 2004.
A look at interpretations of the First Amendment and how they affect the ongoing debate about free speech and hate speech.
3,987 words (approx. 15.9 pages), 9 sources, APA, AU$ 158.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the legal debate surrounding the issue of free speech and hate speech and how the First Amendment's implications regarding this topic lack clarity and, therefore, are subject to numerous interpretations. The paper also looks at how college campuses have attempted to handle the problem of hate speech, examines some Supreme Court rulings on hate speech and hate symbols, and includes an overview of arguments for and against the use of hate speech laws and codes.
Constitutionality of Hate-Speech Laws and Legislation
College Campus Hate-Speech Codes
Fighting Words; Hate Symbols
State Interest in Regulating Hate-Speech
Arguments for and Against Such Laws and Codes
First Amendment Protection of Unpopular or Offensive Speech
Sentence Enhancement for Bias Motivated Crimes
Supreme Court Handling of Hate-Speech and Hate Crime Issues
From the Paper
"Interpretations of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. Like many articles in the Constitution, the exact meaning of the first amendment and the implications it had for the founding fathers are unclear. It provides a general orientation for federal action, but just how it is to be made operational is open to discussion. The conclusion reached will depend on the overall interpretive framework one uses. These frameworks, in turn, will merge into one's political and social philosophy. For example, at the time of its adoption, many thoughtful people believed that government should not prohibit the publication of one's views but could and should punish some writers for the harmful effects of such publication. This view, while plausible, is not the dominant interpretation at the present time."
| |
|
Hate Speech on Campus, 2004.
A discussion of hate speech on campus and whether it is protected by the Constitution.
1,657 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The first part of this paper examines arguments stating that hate speech deserves Constitutional protection. The next part then examines how hate speech hurts victims and destroys tolerance. In the conclusion, this paper argues that the First Amendment protects even hate speech. Thus, campus speech codes and other restrictions on freedom of expression violate the Constitution.
Contents
Hate speech is free speech
Hate speech should be restricted
Position: Hate Speech must be protected
References
From the Paper
"Throughout the history of this country, groups have fought to restrict unpopular and offensive speech. In the 1920s, for example, Margaret Sanger was jailed on obscenity charges after she distributed pamphlets on birth control. In the 1930s, efforts were made to ban representatives of Jehovah?s Witnesses from excessive proselytizing. More recently, American citizens who questioned the Bush administration?s ?war on terror? campaign have been characterized as traitors."
| |
|
Hate Speech on College Campuses, 2005.
Argues for the need of standards to control hate speech on college campuses in the United States.
1,457 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 6 sources, APA, AU$ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
As colleges struggle to handle the various differences their students and faculty embody, the problem of "hate speech" has become a focal point of educational erudition and policy-making. The paper shows that in the most deliberate and alarming cases, hate speech is projected to degrade or disgrace those at whom it is directed, usually colored people, gays, lesbians, the physically or mentally challenged and women, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion or ability. This essay discusses the current dominant structure within which the matter of hate speech is being debated. This structure draws heavily on the discussion of the Fourteenth and the First Amendments, which in the author's opinion, are not adequate to cope with the issue of hate speech. There is a pressing need for extra-legal standards for communicative interaction to handle this sensitive issue.
From the Paper
"Those discussing the hate speech on college campuses often support either the Fourteenth or the First Amendments, depending on their political preferences. Fourteenth Amendment advocates the value of "equal protection" while the First Amendment supports "freedom of speech". Due to this general tendency to rely more and more on various laws, it is not unexpected that hate speech should also be conceived legalistically."
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2002.
This paper discusses the problem of controlling hate speech and yet protecting both free speech and equality.
1,154 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates the clash, between the First Amendment, which protects free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment which protects equality, in relationship to hate speech. This paper refers to hate speech codes which have been developed as a response to hate speech especially on American campuses. The author explains Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire as the benchmark case for "fighting words" and "offensive speech."
Table of Contents
Introduction
Hate Speech Codes
The First Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment
Conclusion
From the Paper
"There seems to be a clash between the First and Fourteenth Amendments; a person has the right to free speech, but a person also has the right to be equal. When free speech becomes hate speech, this can violate the victim?s constitutional rights to be equal. This argument is used to protect hate speech ordinances. Cleary, the idea of ?fighting words? was introduced to address this problem; a person has the freedom to say as they wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others."
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2002.
A review of the 1st and 14th ammendments and their impact on hate speech.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper discussing the issue of hate speech and its relation to the 1st and 14th Amendments. The topic of freedom of speech vs. right to equality and the impact of these on hate speech is discussed.
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2001.
An examination of how to deal with the concept of hate speech in our society.
1,235 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an in-depth examination of how to deal with the issue of hate speech. The author looks at the Constitution, specifically at the contradictions between the 14th Amendment and the concept of freedom of speech. The author looks at some of the commentary written by Jon Locke, or Jon Stuart Mill, and even Aristotle, on the problem of freedom of speech. The author presents historical and modern-day examples of some of the conflicts that have occurred in trying to determine the parameters of freedom of speech, and hate speech in our society.
From the Paper
"John Locke would probably have weighed in on the importance of limiting the speech before it gets to the point where person feels that he or she is endangered. His empirical system of philosophy emphasized the importance of the experience of the senses in pursuit of knowledge rather than intuitive speculation or deduction. Having come into this world with our minds entirely free of innate conceptions, Locke argued that all human thought is based upon experience. And it is the experiences of minorities within American culture that makes them fear the consequences of hate speech; they have learned through their experiences in the world that bigoted speech easily and often turns into bigoted action (Dunn 48). Another essential part of Locke?s philosophy was that all persons are born equal, which would no doubt incline him to value the equal protection of each person under the rule of law (Dunn 121)."
| |
|
The Bill of Rights and Internet Hate Speech, 2004.
Argues for the need to regulate the Internet in regard to undesirable sites and hate speech.
1,335 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Hate speech on the Internet is an area in modern society that has taken on diverse aspects due to the changing standards of correct social behavior and the lack of precise legislation dealing with this subject. Regulating the Internet addresses such sensitive issues as infringement of human and individual rights. This paper argues that serious new issues have arisen from lack of legislation of the Internet, and amendment is necessary in this state of affairs. It shows that regulation of certain Internet material is needed to protect the values that the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment advocate.
From the Paper
"Trying to balance both, freedom of speech and the fear of an inflammatory speech, the Supreme Court produced the "clear and present danger" clause stating that speakers were punishable by law only if they represented ?clear and present danger" to others. (Gora 1991) Again confusion arose from defining the different elements in this clause specifically so as to fit all situations. Speeches by Dr. Martin Luther King to resist segregation would have been classed as dangerous and inciting hate speech by some without our First Amendment protections. At the same time should a web page encouraging young boys to resort to violence to prove superiority of race be allowed to function unimpeded?"
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2000.
An examination of the legality, desirability and feasibility of outlawing racist or hate speech.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech." That prohibition, however, has never been absolute. Some restrictions on speech are necessary, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, a person who yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater could be prosecuted, and the federal government is permitted to regulate commercial speech to protect consumers from false and misleading advertising. Some scholars have proposed that the class of unprotected speech be expanded to include hate speech. This paper will analyze whether such restrictions are necessary or even possible.
Hate speech, or racist speech, is often cited as undeserving of First Amendment protection. Proponents argue that hate speech is not speech at all, but really a "verbal assault." If the point..."
| |
|
Hate Speeches: The Right to Freedom of Speech, 2001.
A look at freedom of speech with respect to 'hate' speeches' and whether or not these speeches are protected under the First Amendment.
1,168 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 5 sources, AU$ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author argues that ?hate speeches?, however abhorrent, should be protected by the U.S. Constitution, that in the interest of free speech, they should be allowed. He suggests that this is synonymous with American freedom and refers to some specific examples in order to assess whether hate speeches should be protected under the First Amendment. The author contends that as long as we are free to judge the importance of what is being said for ourselves, then words should never be banned.
From the paper:
?Words are serious, not because they have any direct effect in their own right, but because words, and the ideas they express, are what we use to weigh up our own decisions, their likely effects, and our responsibilities. Words have consequences only if we choose to give them consequences.?
| |
|
White Media, White Terror and Hate Speech, 2002.
Elaborates on how 'whiteness' in the media maintains inequality and racism through an authoritative practice of identifying hate-based crimes on the basis of identities.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 8 sources, AU$ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It is no secret that the white-controlled media is largely responsible for the language that is used for constructing public ideas about racial identities. . This paper will argue that the media effectively perpetuates racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and other acts of oppression through language practices and speech acts.
| |
|
Gay Speech, not Hate Speech, 2008.
A discussion on the use of word forms specifically constructed for recognition by gay and lesbian groups.
1,041 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, AU$ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper illustrates how language serves a purpose to the gay and lesbian community to assist them in recognizing themselves as a group in a world of opposition and ridicule of their status. The paper quotes several words and descriptively explains how the word is utilized in gay society. The paper then summarizes the situation with examples on how language has been used negatively with the resultant necessity for this group to formulate their own vocabulary.
From the Paper
"This usage appears to have grown out of political activism. The need to combat homophobic oppression - including internalized homophobia - was perceived, and a concrete way of doing this was to hold a public parade in which pride in one's alternative sexual orientation was expressed. Out of this activity, the word "pride" acquired a whole new meaning - a meaning that is useful for this community in overcoming the societal prejudices it has to deal with."
| |
|
Stop the Hate: The Problem of Hate Crimes in America, 2001.
This paper looks at the disturbing rise of hate crimes in the United States, and measures taken by the government to combat the issue.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 6 sources, AU$ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper deals with hate crimes in America , the nation?s response to the concept of the hate crime, and what measures are taken to prevent them. The author includes explicit historical references in the paper regarding anti-Semitic, racial and homosexual prejudices, etc.
From the Paper
"Prejudice is an omnipresent force, evident in civilizations throughout history. People naturally fear that which is different and unusual. Prejudice manifests itself in many forms, an innocent assumption, vulgar graffiti, offensive language, and even assault. It is when a crime becomes motivated by prejudice that it becomes a hate crime. Over the past few years, the nation has experienced an alarming number of disturbing and sometimes deadly hate crimes. The dragging death of Africa-American James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, Texas; the deadly attack on Matthew Sheppard, a gay student in Laramie, Wyoming; the shooting rampage targeting minority citizens in Chicago; and the shootings of children at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles, California, followed by the murder of Joseph Santos Ileto, a Filipino-American mail worker. All of these events have left a trail of dead or wounded victims and traumatized, horrified communities."
| |
|
Boundaries of Free Speech, 2004.
A look at whether campus speech codes are the right way to address the problem of hate speech, or if such speech codes violate free speech to such a degree that they should not be adopted.
2,510 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 14 sources, MLA, AU$ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper asserts campus speech codes are the wrong way to address the problem of hate speech, especially because they exist in a academic setting where freedom of speech should be better understood. The paper concludes that curbing the speech of those who would curb our speech is never the answer. The only way to transform minds is to challenge the ideas behind the hate speech directly through dialogue.
From the Paper
"Americans value the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, but they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift over time. One issue of free speech today is described under the title "Political Correctness," or "PC." It is defined as efforts by certain political groups to enforce some form of speech code in order to control speech and ban any term or phrase that might be considered demeaning to any group in society, so-called "hate speech." One of the problems with these efforts is the vagueness of the terms used to define it--what is "demeaning," and how is it to be decided when a given phrase is demeaning or not? In his chapter, "Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the Unspoken," from the anthology Signs of Life, Richard Goldstein writes, The perception of crisis is why hate speech has become a divisive issue among progressives. The distressing force of the current backlash against hard-won minority rights creates a fundamental conflict between our commitment to free expression and our desire to protect and preserve the victims of abuse. The result is an aching uncertainty about where to draw the line. (412) The question, then, is whether campus speech codes are the right way to address the problem of hate speech, or if such speech codes violate free speech to such a degree that they should not be adopted."
| |
|
Hate Crimes, 1999.
Analyzes constitutionality of & Court decisions in specific cases involving hate speech & hate crimes.
3,375 words (approx. 13.5 pages), 24 sources, AU$ 174.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"HATE SPEECH/HATE CRIMES
This research paper reviews and analyzes the constitutionality and other public policy aspects of efforts by governmental authorities and universities to deal with hate crimes and hate speech directed at ethnic, racial and other minority groups in the United States. Laws, ordinances and university codes enacted to counter hate crimes and hate speech involve fundamental questions of public order, free speech and equal protection under the law. In almost every instance in which the constitutionality of such measures have been tested in the courts, they have been found to be in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Only very narrowly drafted laws and codes stand much chance of surviving constitutional challenges to their validity. Such measures are evidence of a.."
| |
|
Freedom of Speech Boundaries, 2001.
Focus on speech codes on college campuses to control speech demeaning to any group. Discusses legal history, pro & con arguments. Concludes codes to control "hate speech" not a good idea.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Americans value the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, but they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift over time. One issue of free speech today is described under the title "Political Correctness," or "PC." It is defined as efforts by certain political groups, primarily those on the left, to enforce some form of speech code in order to control speech to ban any term or phrase that might be considered demeaning to any group in society, so-called "hate speech." One of the problems with these efforts is the vagueness of the terms used to define it--what is "demeaning," and how is it to be decided when a given phrase is demeaning or not? Richard Goldstein writes ..."
| |
|
Political Correctness, 2003.
Discusses hate speech and free speech.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines political correctness in relation to campus speech codes. It also looks at the media enforcement of PC on writers and gives an example of the "Los Angeles Times" guidelines. It discusses the issue of whether college campus speech codes violate free speech.
From the Paper
"One of the important issues today is described under the title "Political Correctness," or "PC." It is defined as efforts by certain political groups, primarily those on the left, to enforce a form of speech code so as to regulate speech to ban any term ..."
|
|
|
