Hate, Discrimination, and the protection of Liberty.

America is a land founded on the idea of freedom and expression. It is a place that is made up of all different races, cultures, and ideas. It is definitely the melting pot of the modern world. In a place where such diversity exists, one would think that each individual could live a life filled with respect and equality. However, in reality it has been shown that hate speech and discrimination prevails even in a society that prides itself on being liberated. The idea that people should be protected from hate speech and verbal discrimination seems to go against the very ideas of our first amendment that grants us free speech. However, I want to point out articles 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration by each of the 185 member states of the United Nations in which they agree to follow upon certain standards to assure that all humans are given equal rights. Although the UDHR is separate from the United States Constitution, it is still a declaration that the United States must strive to fulfill.

When it comes to hate speech and discrimination, it goes against everything the UDHR stands for, and i personally believe it goes against the United State's vision of being a place where citizens can live a life of liberty.

"The reason it should be banned is that it is inconsistent with the underlying values of liberal democracy to brand some citizens as inferior to others on the grounds of race or sexual orientation."

According to Stanley Fish, “it depends. I am not saying that First Amendment principles are inherently bad (they are inherently nothing), only that they are not always the appropriate reference point for situations involving the production of speech”. But, all things considered, “I am persuaded that at the present moment, right now, the risk of not attending to hate speech is greater than the risk that by regulating it we will deprive ourselves of valuable voices and insights or slide down the slippery slope towards tyranny. This is a judgement for which I can offer reasons but no guarantees” (Freedom Of Speech, Nov. 2002).

Stanley fish believes that free speech is not to be thought of as being dealt with in isolation. He suggests that we must weigh the idea of freedom of speech against other rights that we find important such as privacy, security, equality, and the prevention of harm. The most successful principle will be one that compromises each and every one of the important values into an idealistic way of life.

The problem with this approach is who decides which rights we value the most and what exactly the ideal compromise of these values are.

As a member of the LGBT community i want to use to the example of the Westboro baptist church as an example of hate and discriminatory speech. Members of the Westboro baptist church believe that God is killing soldiers in Iraq because the United States condones homosexuality. When a soldier is killed and is given a funeral, members of the Westboro church protest outside of the funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags", "Thank God for 9/11", "You're going to Hell", and other homophobic sayings. Not only do I believe that what the Westboro church does is extremely discriminatory, but I believe that what they do is extremely disrespectful to the deceased soldiers and their families.

What doesn't seem to make any sense is that the Westboro church doesn't seem to have any legitimate evidence that God is in fact punishing the US by killing soldiers because the US condemns homosexuality. Secondly, I don't understand why they feel the need to invade the funerals of soldiers who are probably not even homosexuals.

Hate speech and discriminatory speech by the Westboro church should not be protected because of the fact that they are invading upon a very sensitive ceremony that should be allowed certain levels of respect and privacy. They are completely allowed to express how they feel and should be allowed to speak about their ideas, however, they shouldn't be allowed to protest at funerals and burials.

Like Stanley Fish said, we should compromise each of the different rights that we value to create an ideal balance that allows for expression but eliminates the obstruction of disrespect that occurs at completely inappropriate times.

When is speech punishable by law?

When it comes to punishing speech that advocates violent overthrow of the government or interference with its military it becomes a huge debate because the whole concept of punishing speech seems to be in violation of the first amendment. According to the first amendment of the United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, it is also the government's job to protect its people and to secure their rights to life liberty, and thepursuit of happiness. When someone is actively speaking about violence or harm that they have every intention in actually pursuing and those words lead to violent and harmful action, then their words should be punishable by law. It is a complicated situation because where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to speaking freely about our discontent with something? Sometimes people say things out of anger, sometimes people say things they really don't mean, and sometimes people say things that they have no intention on actually pursuing.

According to the Brandenburg case, "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines incite/incitement as: : to move to action, stir up , spur on, or to urge on.

I believe that in the case of Dennis vs. US where incitement is not needed to prosecute someone for speaking about the destruction of government by violent force it may go a little bit too far into the realm of violating one's right to free speech. In this case, someone could potentially be saying something out of anger but have no intentions on moving people to action to actually cause violent destruction to a government. However, when incitement is occurring, and speech is being made to move people to cause actual harm (like in the case of Brandenburg), then the government has every right to protect it's people and prosecute the person for prescribing such imminent, lawless action.

When looking at the case of Ali Al-Timimi, it appears as though he was seemingly conspiring against the United States government by aiding the Taliban in an attack on the US military camps in Afghanistan, thus threatening the rights of United States Citizens. Therefore, i believe that Ali Al-Timimi deserved to be arrested and prosecuted by the United States Government.

On September 11, 2001 Terrorists attacked the United States by hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, causing the loss of life for thousands of people. Two days later on September 13, 2001 president bush won NATO support for a possible strike against Usama bin Laden and his supporters in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks on 9-11 initiated a war, although the war did not "officially" start until later. There was obvious shock among the United States, and rightfully there were precautions that the government was taking in order to prevent more attacks from happening.

Less than a week after the terrorist attacks occurred, Ali Al-Timimi spoke at the house Yong Kwon. Al-Timimi, "told his listeners that American troops likely to arrive in Afghanistan would be legitimate targets of the violent jihad in which his listeners had a duty to engage." According to evidence, that same day, "the individuals gathered at Kwon’s house discussed obtaining military-style training from Lashkar-e-Taiba in order to join the mujahideen expected to engage in violent jihad against American troops in Afghanistan."

There is definitely incitement on the part of Ali Al-Timimi because he spoke to members of the Taliban in order to aid them in attacking the United States. I believe that there was true clear and present danger in this case and this clear and present danger showed risk that harmful action may actually happen (and it did happen). The government's substantial reason for punishing the speech is the simple fact that an attack on the US by the men who Al-Timimi had talked to did occur after Al-Timimi's inciting speech. Under Brandenburg he could (and should) be prosecuted for the act of inciting and aiding in the imminent lawless action against the United States.

John Stuart Mill claims under the his idea of "Harm Principle"- "it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation of rights that it can be limited." As i said earlier on... we as citizens of the United States have the right to free speech, however, it is our government's job to protect each and every one of us and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When those rights are being threatened it is up to them to put a stop to it.

Freedom of Speech

Communication is one of the key factors in the success of human beings in the modern world. Without communication there would be no order to things and there surely would be a whole lot of misunderstandings. Thus, it makes perfect sense that it is extremely important that we have laws that protect our rights as free comminucators.

I stronlgy believe in the importance of the individual's rights as opposed to creating laws to protect specific groups. If we create seperate laws for different groups then it in essence gives certain people different rights which creates a sort of inequality.

If you look back in history and think about individuals who spoke out against the larger "group" (i.e. Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, etc.) what would've happened if these people wouldn't have spoken out? If you take away an individual's right to speak out about what they believe in, then you take away the opportunity for changing the way people view things.

I did a study on GLBT rights around the world and found that in many countries who rely heavily on using religious standards to govern the right of free speech and he overall rights of the people within that country are the countries who commit the most human rights abuses against their GLBT communities. For example, in Egypt and Iran where much of the law is based upon Islamic code, members of the GLBT community are arrested and detained for either speaking out for GLBT rights (which most of the GLBT community lives in fear of being caught so often times they don't speak out and attempt to live secret lives), or for being caught in the act of commiting so-called "sodomy."

If there are only laws that reinforce a situational group identity, then it eliminates the rights of the individual who falls outside of that patrticular group or identity.

Even if an individual has the intention on creating evil through their communication their rights should still be protected. Just because their rights are protected doesn't necessarily mean that all other communicators have to agree with what another person is saying, it simply means that we are all allowed to express our own beliefs.

The beauty of having laws that protect the communication rights of an individual is the fact that if someone says something that we don't agree with, we have the right to speak out our own personal view-point on that matter.