Hate speech

1

Hatespeech

Hatespeech is termed as an expression of any form, conduct or gesture,written or displayed and which is forbidden, or that which bringsincitation of violence or actions of prejudice. In situations where aspeech entertains incitements and illegal violence, this speech canthen be termed to be a hate speech if only the effect of violence isimpending. This harsh standard puts off prosecution of a lot ofoccurrences of incitement, which involves prosecution of those peoplewho advocate for violence, oppose the government, and the ones whoperpetrate acts of violence to ethnic, racial and gender minorities.

Thereare Web sites that use disgusting speeches and they are called hatesports. A number of the stated sites have briefs of news andinternet discussions that highlight particular points of view. Therelevance of liberty of speech to the internet has many timesdiscussed. The UNHCR has been involved in the sponsorship ofconferences that raise issues of this freedom (UNHCR 2010).

ALegal liability occurs if a speech results in an extra liability andthen it is paired with the underlying crime. Harmful activities ofexpression which damages communities and individuals are enough to beconsidered as acts of crime. Speechand expression, freedom, relate to the other rights, thuslimitations might be put into place, when there is conflict withother people’s rights. The right to expression can be denied if itwill result to contempt of court, hence denying another person theright to a fair, free trial or in a way affects court proceeding. Freedom enhances socialization as communicating helps in creatinghealthy relationships, development of knowledge. Underthe VII title in the 1964 Acts of the Civil Rights, employers can attimes be prosecuted because of stomaching &quothate speeches&quotfrom their employees. If those speeches lead to a wider outline ofharassment that later cause an offensive and hostile workingconditions for the other employees.

Thestudy by NTIA also established that &quothotlines&quot of hate aresometimes used to convey recorded messages of bias and prejudice andothers like telephones could be used to frighten, harass and threatenpeople and organizations. NTIA`s investigations suggest that hatecommunication represents a very small percentage of electronic mediacommunications whose best answer is public education instead ofgovernment restrictions and regulation. Legal solutions involve theoperations of telecommunications in committing or encouraging hateoffenses are analyzed, use of technologies to protect or authorizeintentions of hate speeches.

Thedegree of the defense afforded to the right of speech and pressfreedom is in the Supreme Court’s hand where the court decides whatcan be termed as hate speech. The decision of the court parse decidesthe fate of a hate speech case because it is given the mandate ofdetermining if a speech can cause violence and tension. The press usethe right to speech, freedom which allows citizens to communicatewithout government interference or restriction to their advantagethus their freedom can hardly be curtailed. Thegovernment is required by the highest court in the land to presentsubstantial justification and to why there is need to interfere withthe right of speech. It can prohibit some types of speech that arefeared to be in a position to disturb peace or trigger violence. Thepress freedom allows people to express themselves using publicationsand other forms of broadcastings. The amendment does not give themedia practitioners any additional privileges or special rights, butit is enough to provide a level playing field.

Amedia house can argue that the information disseminated was of publicinterest. If the media house or an individual can prove that theinformation disseminated was needed by the public, they stand a highchance of being exempted from any wrong doing. The information is ofpublic good if it is informed or educating or it helps in averting atragedy.

Itwas established that radio stations were involved in disseminatingfalse facts, used divisive language, dehumanizing metaphors andflawed argumentations. Whenever the government tries to curb hatespeeches, its action is viewed as a way of silencing those whocriticize its social policies (Dale, Thomas 2005).

Theyglobally recognized right to freedom of expression does not allow forimprisonment of journalists except in the most extreme instances ofhate speech. With the US being a role model in the arena ofrespecting human right, punishing, imprisoning and harassment ofreporters are an acceptable. Internationally, the imprisonment ofjournalists is only acceptable in cases of extreme use of hate speech(Waldron, Jeremy 2012). With media houses setting high financial goalhate speeches are mostly used to increase the number of the audience.This consequently increases in cases of hate speeches in the mediawhere the hate speeches are broadcasted as news[ CITATION Flo031 l 1033 ].

Despitethe few unfortunate incidents of hate speeches, freedom of speechshould be guarded as it is a corner stone to democracy and publicinvolvement in matters of decision making. The freedom of expressionenables people to express their outlooks and opinions without beinginfluenced[ CITATION Stu14 l 1033 ].Moderation should be practiced to ensure that other human rights areprotected to create an environment that’s conducive for the mediato operate in.

Reference

Floyd,A. Trialsof the First Amendment.Chicago: Chicago Publishers, 2003.

Daleand Thomas. FromFreedom of Speech in the United States.New York: Liberal law society UnitedStates. US codes. St Paul City: Unfetted press, 2005.

Studentsin Action. Debatinghate speech.Web 3 December 2014.

UNHCR.ConstitutionalFreedoms.Web July 2008. 15 December 2010.

Waldron,J. TheHarm in Hate Speech.New York: New York Publishers, 2012.