Navigating the Legal and Ethical Landscape of Hate Speech in the U.S.

Abstract

Hate Speech Essay Introduction In defining hate speech, it is imperative to not the primary intention of such a speech. Based on its simple title, "hate speech", one can argue that it is purposely directed to humiliating an individual or a group. According to Alfaro (2017), hate speech serves as a public speech that directly expresses hate or encourages violence towards an individual or group. The hatred or violence directly expressed through hate speech is coined around religion, race, and gender, among other factors that enhance the identification of a specific person or group. Hate speech is not news as commonly expressed and experienced by different people across the globe. Some countries take hate speech as an illegal act and set laws that restrict its citizens from exercising it, and in case of violating such laws, suitable measures are enforced. For instance, in the U.K., hate speech is illegal and punishable by fines, imprisonment or both. In Australia, the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1998 prohibits any form of hate speech based on race, religion, gender, among other factor and violation of such regulations is punishable by law. Finally, to mention a few, Canada prohibits the promotion of hatred, be it in hate speech or any other form under Section 319(2), and violation of such restriction remains punishable by law. However, hate speech is not defined as illegal in the United States of America. No law regulating it is enforced as attributed to the First Amendment that allows for the freedom of speech. For this reason, the need to analyze hate speech from the American perspective will offer a better understanding of the legal and ethical context surrounding this controversial issue. Hate speech contradicts the freedom of speech amendments, which protects people's right to express their views, opinions, and suggestions in a manner that suits them best. However, a nation needs to categorize to which extent people are protected by laws that provide freedom of speech. For instance, though a superpower, the American constitution remains unclear on its provisions define as hate speech. Such inabilities are defined by the stipulations of the First Amendments within the American Constitution. It provides its citizens with the freedom of expression, which many misuses as attributed to the protections therein. It is the protection of free speech provided in the First Amendment that defines the history of hate speech protection within the United States (Kang, 2018). Ever since the 15th day of December 1791, when the First Amendment became officially adopted as part of the Bill of Rights within the American constitution, protection of freedom of speech became defined, which in one way or the other defined the potentials of hate speech amongst Americans (Lash, 2020). Ever since then, there have been contradictions on what defines hate speech leading to many culprits of hate speech being declared innocent as ignorance of the law has no defence. Though the setting of impermissible propagations of hate speech/hatred and protected speech varies from one nation to another, United States has not expressed any change on its stand concerning redefining what speech ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Evidently, hate speech is given substantial constitutional protections in America. In other western countries like Germany, U.K, and Canada and under international human rights covenants, hate speech remains highly prohibited and subjected to criminal sanctions (Rosenfeld, 2002). initially, most of the people who engaged in hate speech were members of groups long victimized by racist policies, and rhetoric's thus directed their hatred towards their racist oppressor. The notion of this act has experienced changes with time, with many people, whether oppressed or not, taking advantage of the protection provided for freedom of expression laws. For instance, in the United States, most hate speech comes from prominent people whose racist characteristic remains publicly defined. Portraying a good example, in Snyder vs Phelps case, the Supreme Court ruled in consideration of the stipulations of the First Amendment. It ignored the expression of hatred toward the USA government/military, which defines a hate speech offender expressed by Phelps and his Westboro church followers picketing and signage (Hudson Jr. 2017). As the case illustrates, Mathew Snyder served in the American military and died in the line of duty in Iraq, an act that Phelps and his church followers condemned in a great manner. As a matter of expressing their anger, during Snyder’s funeral, Phelps and his follower came out. They picketed the funeral with messages directed to express their dissatisfaction with the American government treatment of their military citizens, stating, “God hates the USA, Thank God for Dead Soldier and Thank God for 9/11", and notified the local authority before the funeral day. Albert Snyder, the father to the deceased military police, saw the posts but paid little attention to them as a sign of respect for his sons' final send-off. However, after some days, Albert saw the news of the picketing during his son's funeral in a local newspaper, then he became aware of the message that Phelps and his church followers aimed to pass. Albert sued Phelps, demanding action to be taken o Phelps and his fellows for causing him psychological and emotional torture. Phelps responded by citing that the picketing and signs are part of free speech whose protection in the First Amendment remains well defined. In response to Albert's accusation, a jury for the District of Maryland sided with Albert and awarded him $10.9million, which was later lower to $5million. Finally, the judgment reversed, citing that Phelps speech remained fully protected by the First Amendment (Hudson Jr. 2017). Though some of the picketing and signs were personally directed to the Snyder family, the Supreme Court ruled that Phelps and his followers’ speech were matters of public concern on the public property, thus entitled to complete protection under the First Amendment. In such a scenario, one can argue vividly understand the extent to which American takes advantage of the provision of the First Amendment to spit out whatever opinion that might be pressing them regardless of the message impact to the target audience. Ethically, freedom of speech is the most Cherished Constitutional right in America and a potential cultural symbol (Kang, 2018). Any ruling/argument that may compromise the value of such a right is viewed as a threat to the American Constitution aimed at neutralizing the weight its provisions provides therein. Though people engage in hate speech, the American government is reluctant in crucifying them and defining such characters as offender since they ethically have the right of free expression/speech fully protected and provided for by the American Constitution. For this reason, it is good to argue there are no grounds that best...