An examination of how to deal with the concept of hate speech in our society.
This paper is an in-depth examination of how to deal with the issue of hate speech. The author looks at the Constitution, specifically at the contradictions between the 14th Amendment and the concept of freedom of speech. The author looks at some of the commentary written by Jon Locke, or Jon Stuart Mill, and even Aristotle, on the problem of freedom of speech. The author presents historical and modern-day examples of some of the conflicts that have occurred in trying to determine the parameters of freedom of speech, and hate speech in our society.
“John Locke would probably have weighed in on the importance of limiting the speech before it gets to the point where person feels that he or she is endangered. His empirical system of philosophy emphasized the importance of the experience of the senses in pursuit of knowledge rather than intuitive speculation or deduction. Having come into this world with our minds entirely free of innate conceptions, Locke argued that all human thought is based upon experience. And it is the experiences of minorities within American culture that makes them fear the consequences of hate speech; they have learned through their experiences in the world that bigoted speech easily and often turns into bigoted action (Dunn 48). Another essential part of Locke’s philosophy was that all persons are born equal, which would no doubt incline him to value the equal protection of each person under the rule of law (Dunn 121).”