Hate Crime should be Punished

Although actions performed with good intentions sometimes lead to unfavorable consequences, this notion applies particularly to things with well-intentioned ideologies. An idea might appear promising on paper, but upon implementation, it may falter. This typically happens because, despite the noble purpose of these ideas, individuals often neglect to consider potential negative consequences that may arise upon their delivery. Hate speech, when criminalized, stands as one example of this phenomenon. Even though outlawing hate speech appears well-intentioned, its actual implementation would likely be flawed.

Indeed, no person wants to face hate speech; it's abhorrent to demean someone based on their race, gender, religion, sexuality, or similar facets. Nonetheless, this doesn't guarantee successful regulation of hate speech, suggesting its probable ill-execution. While criminalizing hate speech instills a comforting feeling, there are numerous reasons why it might not function as intended or may be implemented poorly. In fact, criminalizing hate speech is superfluous, and it would lead to unforeseen issues rather than providing an effective solution to addressing hate speech.

Existing laws can already address hate speech when it crosses certain boundaries, making new hate speech laws unnecessary. As noted by Joyce Arthur, an activist and feminist writer, "Hate Speech is perilous because words have power and can prompt others to act" (qtd in "Should Hate Speech Be a Crime?"). According to her, hate speech can "limit people’s opportunities, isolate them socially, push them into poverty, lead to loss of self-esteem and depression, and endanger their health and safety" (qtd in "Should Hate Speech Be a Crime?"). All these points hold true since hate speech can potentially instigate harmful actions or criminal activities, while jeopardizing a person’s mental and emotional health. Yet, a gay rights activist argues, "This amounts to harassment and can be dealt with using anti-harassment laws, without the need for legislation against hate speech," (qtd. in "Should Hate Speech Be a Crime?"). This indicates that hate speech can be deemed criminal if it incites illegal activities or if it qualifies as harassment, which can be regulated through existing anti-harassment laws. This suggests that the current legal system is sufficiently capable of regulating hate speech, thereby eliminating the need for distinct hate speech laws. Setting aside the redundancy of such laws, the proposition to ban hate speech carries additional complications.

One problem with banning hate speech is that it would completely violate the First Amendment. According to "Hate Speech and Hate Crime," the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all types of expression, no matter how abusive, insulting, hurtful, or offensive it may be. The First Amendment is supposed to provide freedom of speech for those whose views we disagree with. We would be disregarding the First Amendment by banning hate speech, as it is just another form of unpopular speech. In 2011, the Supreme Court decided not to punish the Westboro Baptist Church when they mocked a deceased officer, the LGBTQ Community, and the United States government to protect the rights and freedom granted by the First Amendment ("Hate Speech and Hate Crime"). That means that if hate speech does become illegal, we would no longer have freedom of speech. To ban it would essentially mean banning free speech, and we must protect freedom of speech for everyone, or else no one will have that right. Besides, implementing laws against hate speech would be quite challenging.

To make hate speech a crime would mean identifying a clear definition of hate speech. That would be a difficult and dangerous task. As previously stated, hate speech is generally described as a form of speech that demean and attack people or groups based on ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or disability. However, "hate speech" does not legally have a definition in the United States. Should hate speech become illegal, it would require a legal definition that might not align with its general definition. Any type of speech could be labeled or defined as hate speech. Constitutional law expert Philippa Strum explains, "if we outlaw speech, that means the government or others in authority are going to be picking and choosing what we hear" (qtd. in Ross 21). In other words, authorities could cherry-pick what they consider to be hate speech, and giving them that power could lead to potential abuse. Giving the government or authorities the power to decide which expressions we can use or hear would ultimately result in censorship.

Banning hate speech only suppresses the problem rather than solving it. Hate and hate speech cannot simply be resolved by making them illegal. People's opinions and views will not change just because they are prohibited from expressing them. Outlawing and banning hate speech does not solve anything. According to "Should 'Hate Speech' Be Free?," freedom of speech is crucial for public debate and discussion. If hate speech were to become outlawed, we would not be able to challenge, counter, or fight back against the views we disagree with. Hate speech (and hate in general) is a problem that we must address. However, criminalizing hate speech would not be the appropriate solution.

The correct way to solve and fix hate speech is to continuously counter it by discussing, challenging, and educating people. It would be a tedious and long process but it is a much more effective one compared to outlawing hate speech. Tatchell says that laws against hate speech only deal with hate speech after it has already happened. He would rather prefer hate to be destroyed completely before it's said and expressed (qtd. in “Should Hate Speech Be a Crime”). He continues his point by saying that using the law to suppress hate speech is only a temporary solution, and that a better solution is “education against hateful ideas” (qtd. in “Should Hate Speech Be a Crime”). The problem of hate and hateful speech cannot be immediately resolved. However, we can still respond and fight back against hate speech, even if we cannot completely destroy it. People who use hate speech have the First Amendment protecting them, but the First Amendment does not protect them from people responding to their views. In 1977, a group of neo-Nazis (National Socialist Party of America) requested to hold a rally in Skokie, Illinois, where about sixty percent of the population was Jewish, thousands of them also survivors of the Holocaust (Ross 19).

Skokie officials tried to block the demonstration from happening, but the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) argued that it had the right to hold the demonstration, and a federal district court ruled in favor of the neo-Nazis (Ross 20). However, the residents of Skokie exercised their First Amendment rights to campaign if the Nazis were to show up, which caused the Nazis to move to some other location (Ross 21). The Skokie residents demonstrated a great example of how to counter and respond to hate speech. The First Amendment permits all kinds of speech, not just hateful, abusive, or insulting speech. People should exercise their own rights to freedom of speech to respond to hate speech. We do not have a quick solution to hate speech or a quick solution to hate. We can, however, respond and fight back against hate speech. We need to do this continuously.

If we were to criminalize and outlaw hate speech, we would also be going backwards instead of making any progress. The only way we can progress and fix hate speech is by doing so steadily. Hate speech is not a problem that can be fixed overnight. People must be willing to improve and make changes to this problem, just like most problems. The problem of hate speech cannot be fixed with a simple law. The majority of people can agree that hate speech is never a good thing. However, hate speech has still impacted the United States to a great degree. Words carry weight, and hate speech especially can carry a significant amount of weight, and as stated previously, hate speech can be very harmful to a person in many ways. However, it is also a very necessary thing in today’s American society. America is arguably one of the freest countries in terms of speech, so we should try to keep it that way. Hate speech is a terrible thing, but like a lot of terrible things, it is crucial for it to stay legal. By continuing to allow hate speech to be protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States would also be allowing us to exercise our right to freedom of speech as well.

Did you like this example?

797

42