HATE SPEECH/HATE CRIMES
This research paper rev
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This research paper reviews and analyzes the constitutionality and other public policy aspects of efforts by governmental authorities and universities to deal with hate crimes and hate speech directed at ethnic, racial and other minority groups in the United States. Laws, ordinances and university codes enacted to counter hate crimes and hate speech involve fundamental questions of public order, free speech and equal protection under the law. In almost every instance in which the constitutionality of such measures have been tested in the courts, they have been found to be in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Only very narrowly drafted laws and codes stand much chance of surviving constitutional challenges to their validity. Such measures are evidence of a trend toward the imposition of prevailing views of political correctness, which tend to undermine the foundations of democracy itself and do not serve to ease the racial and ethnic tensions in American society, which must be solved by other means. During the 1980s and 1990s, a rising number of incidents involving hate crimes and hate speech occurred, especially on college and university campuses. Davis defines hate crimes "as crimes that manifest prejudice based on certain group characteristics" (386). Walker says that hate speech includes "any form of expression deemed offensive to any racial, religious, ethnic or national group" (8). Hate crimes took man
. . .
of race, color, creed, religion or gender" (Walker 127). The Minnesota Court said that the burning of a cross on the lawn of an African-American couple was "deplorable conduct that the city of St. Paul may without question prohibit."
By a five to four margin, the Supreme Court reversed and declared the St. Paul ordinance unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Justice David Souter for the majority stated that "local governments . . . may prohibit littering or arson on people's lawns, but they may not single out racially motivated acts, such as cross burning, for criminalization" (326). To understand the viewpoint of the majority and the objections of the justices which concurred and dissented in the R.A.V. case, one must understand how the constitutional doctrine of free speech has evolved during this century.
Justice William Brennan in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) said that the public policy rationale behind the Court's repeated protections of offensive or objectionable forms of expression reflected "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open." Under a series of decisions since the 1920s, the Supreme Court has broadly interpr
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, United Laws, Supreme Court's, Charles Lawrence, Policy Issues, America Asia, Sigma Chi, ED Wisc, St Paul, District Court, hate speech, et al, cochran et al, cochran et, supreme court, free speech, hate crimes, freedom speech, racial ethnic, st paul, crimes hate speech, crimes hate, hate crimes hate, city st paul, fraternity george mason,
Approximate Word count = 4248
Approximate Pages = 17 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
