Hate Speech, Should it be Regulated? Hate speech, what is it? The definition of hate speech, according to Mari J. Matsuda, author of “Assaultive Speech and Academic Freedom, is .”.. (a word of group of words) of which is to wound and degrade by asserting the inherent inferiority of a group” (151).
In my own words hate speech is a humiliation and demeaning slur of words specifically used to disgrace a person for their race, religion, or sexual habits. There is now a controversy if hate speech should be regulated on college campuses or not. I have read a few articles with the author being either for or against regulating hate speech.
My opinion is that yes, we should regulate hate speech on college campuses. In three of the six articles I have read the author was for regulating hate speech. Those three are Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R.
Lawrence III, author of “If he Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus (155),” and also Richard Delgado and David H. Yun, authors of “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation” (162).
Matsuda believes that hate speech is assualtive against race and sexism (150).
The Essay on Offensive Speech (Hate Speech And Bullying)
“On October 17, 2006, Megan Meir, a thirteen-year-old girl in Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, who had been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and depression, committed suicide because of postings on MySpace, an Internet social networking site, saying she was a bad person, whom everyone hated and the world would be better off without” (John O. Hayward). Throughout the years offensive speech, ...
I also believe that hate speech is assualtive, especially when it is a racial or sexual comment. Lawrence believes that “minority-group students need this support of protection” (155).
This I also agree with.
Students should be able to walk throughout their campus without having to worry about what will be said to them that day. Delgado and Yun believe that the parenthetical view is the problem of hate speech. This is do not agree with. Although all three of these authors do agree on one thing, and that is regulating hate speech. The other three authors that I read are against regulating hate speech. They are: Paul McMaster author of “free speech Versus Civil Discourse” (173), author Susan Gellman, wrote “Sticks and Stones Can Put You in Jail, But Can Words Increase Your Sentence?” (176), and also Henry Louis Gates Jr.
, author of “Lat Them Talk” (182).
McMaster believes fully in the right of the first amendment and that it should not be gone against. He believes that if hate speech is regulated then the first amendment is violated. I do agree with McMaster on this one stand point but it is not enough to make me against regulation. Gellman asks three questions, those are: “What are the costs to society as a whole of hate speech laws (which she calls ‘ethnic intimidation laws’)? Are there unexpected dangers for ethnic minority groups in the hate speech laws designed to protect them? Do hate speech laws actually achieve their objectives of ‘combating bigotry and encouraging equal dignity’?” (176).
My answer to the first question is the cost to society is the hate and the bad relationships that there are in our society.
The second question I answer as: no there are not unexpected dangers because this law protects them. Also to the third question I say that yes it will achieve their objective to reducing hate speech because of the consequences that will be given. Gates believes that “to regulate speech will lead to wider restrictions on free speech and to a weakening of civil rights” (182).
The Essay on Hate Crimes Crime Laws Gay
Hate Crime Laws are the Result of the Gay Panic Defense Editorial by Rich B. Kim From the Houston Chronicle, October 14, 1998: The passage of hate crime laws would be the wrong way to react to the brutal murder of University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepherd. All victims are equally deserving of protection against violence, and the subjective nature of determining which views count as hateful ...
Although it might put a damper on how people perceive the first amendment, I believe that it will not weaken our civil rights. These are the views of the three authors on being against regulating hate speech. Yes I am for regulating hate speech, although I do comprehend and understand McMaster’s view that it will go against the first amendment.
I am all for free speech but when it comes down to degrading, demeaning, and humiliating another human being it is not speech. I see it as slander! Calling another person a nasty name because or their race, religion, of sexual behaviors is not speech. To me I see it unconstitutional to say these types of words. I believe that it should not be protected under the right of free speech. Hate speech is not speech it is slander! I agree that there should be hate speech regulation on college campuses. I agree with Matsuda, Lawrence, and Delgado and Yun.
Hate speech is an assaultive verbal abuse and it degrades another person. I believe that it is not speech and that there should be a law stating that it is unconstitutional and not right. There is no reason that a person should be discriminated against because somebody does not like them for a stupid reason such as their race, religion, or sexual behaviors. Hate speech should be regulated on college campuses!.
