1) Freedom of speech is not absolute. Society must decide—through its laws—the limits of free speech. By prohibiting hate speech, the government balances freedom of expression with other democratic values like respect and inclusion. If the government gets the balance wrong, then the people can always change it. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 2) Hate speech directed against marginalized or minority groups is particularly damaging. It strikes against people who lack power. Punishing hateful speech promotes the political, economic, and social inclusion of all people. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 3) Hate speech has a “chilling” effect. History has shown that demeaning and hateful speech is frequently the first act of persecution against specific people and groups. The next step may be to criminalize or terrorize the group. Punishing hate speech establishes necessary and appropriate limits on what can be said in a democratic society to prevent violence. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 4) Research shows that being subjected to hate speech on a regular basis can cause health problems. These include high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Students who experience racist hate speech don’t do as well at school. Thus, even when hate speech doesn’t incite violence, it causes harm to its victims. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 5) Our government should take a clear stand for what is right. Hatred and intolerance are wrong. By enacting a ban on hate speech, our democracy will set an example of writing our values—inclusion, security, and equal protection—into our laws. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 6) Laws punishing hate speech will have the effect of “chilling” free speech: people will be less likely to say what they really mean. Once the government has the power to punish expression, the types of prohibited speech will grow. Governments should be permitted to control only what people can and cannot do, not what they say or believe. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 7) People don’t agree on what speech is hateful, offensive, or just an opinion with which they disagree. For example, a survey showed that Democrats (54%) are more likely to agree that calling a woman vulgar names is hateful than are Republicans (31%). Similarly, 42% of Republicans think calling police racist is hate speech, while only 19% of Democrats agree.If we can’t agree on what hate speech is, how can we ban it? a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 8) People are too sensitive. They are too easily “triggered” by things as simple as a campaign slogan written in chalk on their college campus. This example of political correctness gone too far shows how quickly claims of hate speech could snowball if we banned it. No one would feel safe even expressing an opinion. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 9) Dealing with hate speech is the price to pay for our freedom. Everything that is legal is not necessarily socially acceptable. It is better to err on the side of allowing some harmful speech than on the side of banning some beneficial speech. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment) 10) Laws prohibiting hate speech don’t work. Such laws are often too vague and require the government to determine the intent of the speaker. This is difficult, if not impossible. A word or symbol can mean something to one person, and something very different to another person. The government can use its time better by punishing people for their hateful actions, not for their speech. a) Snyder (hate speech is not protected speech) b) Phelps (hate speech is protected by 1st Amendment)

Snyder v. Phelps Classifying Arguments (From Street Law)

印刷
埋め込み

リーダーボード

表示スタイル

オプション

テンプレートを切り替える

自動保存: を復元しますか?