Essays analysis
In the following essays; “The case for Censoring Hata Speech,” by Sean McElwee, “The Case for Hate Speech,” by James Altschul, “We Regulate Slander, Why Not Hate Speech, “by Laural Nielsen and “Liberals, Don’t Lose Faith in the First Amendment” by David Cole intend to create some arguments on the hate speech. Therefore, the fundamental aim of this essay is to discuss some arguments ideas explained by the work of the above authors on the issue concerning hate speech in public.
Sean McElwee is a researcher and writer who lives in New York City. He has written several articles, including “The fight for Supreme Court,” American election,” “Lesson for Democrats,” and “doubling on sexism.” In the article on “The case for Censoring Hate Speech,” Sean McElwee has stood to mock every case of expressing hate speech, especially on the public platform. The reason why McElwee is against any form of hate speech is that it is only through hate speech that the unity of the nation is compromised. His claims were based on the Facebook platform that has created an add-on feature that seems to contribute to spreading rumours. According to McElwee, the government should intervene over the matter to control social networking websites, including Facebook, to control public hate speech as a way of adopting the European Model for fighting against offensive material.
James Altschul in his essay on “The case for hate speech,” claims that the only way to control public hate speech is through creating charges on every person or organisation that tends to spread public hate speech, thus why he claimed, “Hate speech is not free speech.” James Altschul is a historian Asian American citizen who currently works as a teacher in Japan. Following the case of Prophet Muhammad who created a controversial speech based on the Confederate battle flag, Altschul suggests that government should place charges through the judicial department on everyone who is found guilty of painting contradictory information without legal control. According to Altschul, the section on the constitution that gives everyone mandate to freedom to expression should be limited with immediate effect since it seems to compromise the public opinions. By that, the only way to control public hate speech in the nation is through control of freedom of expression through the judicial department.
Laural Nielsen, in his article “We regulate Slander,” Why not Hate speech,” claims Supreme Court should be held accountable of every public hate speech issues. Niesel is a well known legal scholar and sociologist who strived to explain the importance of having control of free speech to undergraduate. He advises the Supreme Court to have legal measure and restriction on every form of public hate speech, especially to the undergraduates. In this essay, he suggests that if the government had made the step on controlling federal, state and local laws, therefore they are capable of controlling the hate speech in the country. According to the Niesel, the only procedural methods that the national government can win the issue of public hate speech is holding the Supreme Court accountable for every issue concerning the hate speech. The reason behind Niesel calling upon government interventions over the above matter is because some undergraduates seemed to have taken the wrong direction on issues of spreading public hate speech through college walls.
David Cole, on his article “Liberal, Don’t lose Faith Amendment,” claims that the government should withdraw the First Amendment in the constitution to control the issue of public hate speech. David Cole is an American documentary film director and journalist. He is well known as Holocaust denier. According to David Cole, First Amendment which was under Chief Justice John G.Roberts Jr should be withdrawn from the constitution since they tend to safeguard for progressive speech which has become a boon to the powerful, conservative and corporation. The reason behind First Amendment withdrawals is that it does not favour the right kind of speech to the society since the government is held out of controlling the speaker by their words. At last, these forms of public expression do not help to check official public discourse.
In conclusion, the above essay’s author stands to discourage every issue of public hate speech. They have given several ways in which the issue of hate speech should be held in society. Some of this solution include governmental intervention, supreme court intervention, abolish of the first Amendment and creating charges on people and organisation held accountable for violating the principle of hate speech. Therefore, this essay aims to educate and inform us of the appropriate procedural methods for controlling the issues of public hate speech.