Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Political Issues
Should we tolerate hate speech?
Results so far:
| No | 60% | 615 votes | Total: 1018 votes | |
| Yes | 40% | 403 votes |
No
by Vicki Phipps
Created on: February 05, 2011
We, the people of America are all for free speech and we’ll fight for your right to disagree with any one of us, including the president we elect, but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate what people legally say to instigate hate. It’s an abuse of the truth and a disgrace to the constitution, which was designed in ways that require us to tolerate what and who we hate and/or what or who makes us afraid. Even so, tolerance is a choice we make and when people instigate hate in the name of free speech, they rob us of the very things that made the United States great, like diversity, liberty, justice, hope and faith.
Any hate speech you hear is always based on fear and fear has always been our worst enemy in the land of the free. That’s why we must keep in mind that since we also claim to live in the home of the brave, we have to face what makes us afraid. Otherwise, the monsters in our minds keep biting our society’s behind. Besides, more often than not, fear is based on nothing but ignorance, so one way we can refuse to tolerate the hate people instigate is to educate ourselves and everyone else.
If you listen to the guy your friends despise, you might find that he’s not the demon your friends made him out to be. You can then exercise your right to disagree which will eventually benefit your friends and maybe even the country. Hate is a waste of time because it almost always hides behind a lie, based on false information, misinterpretations and ignorance, so if we want to reduce the need for any hate speech, we need to speak out when people abuse the truth. Otherwise, your silent tolerance indicates that you agree with the hateful speech. Free speech was meant to lead to the truth and the truth is what provides liberty and justice for all.
To keep from abusing free speech, we have to open our minds and listen to the other guy sometimes. We must refuse to pay attention to men who get paid to make us hate each other. Those who profit from the hate they create benefit no one but themselves. They are not patriots, but opportunists who take advantage of hard times, so let’s pay more attention to those who motivate unity and hope. You don’t have to blindly agree with every inspirational speech, but at least you wont be mad, sad or hopeless.
The constitution was intended to unite us not divide us. That’s why we should not tolerate the damage, disgrace and harm every hate speech creates. With the whole world watching, their words hang in the air everywhere, making hypocrites of us who tolerate such hateful stuff. Still, it’s a choice we make, so do we choose hope or hate? Do we want to be free or do we want to be safe in a false sense of security? The truth is there’s no such thing as safe and secure in a free society. To maintain our faith in all that made the United States great, we must rise above the fear and hate. Don’t put up with what does more harm than good. Only then will we never again have to tolerate a hate speech.
Learn more about this author, Vicki Phipps.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
by Daniel Troit
Created on: February 08, 2009
Several nations have passed specific legislation prohibiting or restricting hate speech. The desire to maintain a standard of equality for their citizens has lead different governments to regulate the content of certain speech in order to inhibit the ability of one group to intimidate or incite violence against another. While acknowledging an individual's right to live free from unreasonable harassment, the United States has been unable to prioritize such a right above that of the Freedom of Speech that it treasures as a core American value. Because of its reticence to restrict any nature of discourse, the United States has been the home of a continuing domestic conflict over whether such laws should be enacted.
Hate speech is said to distinguish itself from other forms of expression in its specific focus upon individuals or groups based upon differences in being, as opposed to differences in action. The direct expression of hate toward another is only considered hate speech if it is based upon intrinsic general differences and not personal experience. If one individual were to express hate for another based upon some personal grievance stemming from a personal interaction, they would not be necessarily engaging in hate speech.
In asking whether we, as a society, should tolerate hate speech, we are essentially asking if intolerance should be met with more intolerance. Do we desire to hinder the hateful advances of one party to restrict another through words by restricting another right, perhaps more fundamental? The question of tolerance implies that the population has a choice as to whether it will allow such speech. In truth, however, the ability of one party to restrict the free speech of another, regardless of how hateful or encouraging, is non-existent. The guarantee of free speech is set to preserve and engender debate in a freethinking and democratic state.
In seeking to legislate against hate speech, one is essentially admitting one's own incapacity to combat hate speech with a greater argument. The desire to face our social problems in the open, away from the cloister of secret bigotry is what inspired the very spirit of debate that fuels our protection of all forms of speech. The challenge of hate speech is not a political but rather an intellectual and social issue. To make laws abridging such a right not only inhibits the efforts of bigots but patriots as well.
How, then, are we as a people to combat the schism and aggression in a nation made apparent in hate speech? Are we to treat the symptom and forbid such expression or would that be a cowardly avoidance of the cause? The true source of separation and hatred between groups is a lack of communication, not an overabundance. If we are truly opposed to the hatred heard in the words of some, it is our duty to argue against and disprove those ideas, not restrict them. Only when we step up to the plate and take full responsibility for our task to change minds instead of laws will we be able to remain both tolerant and free.
Learn more about this author, Daniel Troit.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley