“Free Speech is Going to the Dogs”
This summer, I have read Nat Hentoff’s articles for his distinctive and influential writing style. His work is distinguished by an excellent blend of perceptive analysis and impassioned advocacy that brilliantly captures the core of his subjects with a high degree of sensitivity and nuance. Clarity and critical thinking are traits of Hentoff’s writing as he successfully navigates difficult subjects such as social justice. Hentoff creates a compelling variety of thought-provoking ideas and emotive storytelling with a unique ability to weave personal storylines with larger societal challenges. His work is a timeless tribute to the power of journalism because of his dedication to fostering debate and his unflinching loyalty to the principles of free expression. This can be seen Primarily in the article, “Free Speech is Going to the Dogs”.
The article delves into the landscape of hate speech laws within developed nations, drawing a sharp contrast between the United States’ robust First Amendment safeguards and Europe’s more stringent regulations. It cites specific instances, such as the trial of Maclean’s magazine in Canada and the legal charges against Brigitte Bardot in France for hate speech. A 2015 poll conducted by YouGov.com lends evidence, revealing substantial support for hate speech laws among Americans, particularly Democrats, who advocate criminalizing speech that stirs hatred based on characteristics like race, gender, and religion. Legal scholar Eugene Volokh’s perspective on the intricacies of carving exceptions into the First Amendment framework is cited. The article further illustrates the issue through a recent bizarre incident in Scotland, where a man was apprehended over a satirical video featuring a dog mimicking Nazi salutes. This case underscores the ongoing discourse over safeguarding free speech while addressing offensive expression.
Discussion Question: Which is more important, protecting free speech or curbing hate speech, and do you believe that the United States should maintain its distinct approach to free speech, as protected under the First Amendment?
I think protecting free speech is more important that curbing hate speech because once you take away the freedom of speech it will cause other rights to be taken away and eventually we’d be left with little to nothing. While hate speech seems to be becoming an issue in the United States, it would be better to protect free speech than to try to curb all hate speech. I do believe the United States should maintain its distinct approach to free speech because under the First Amendment, free speech means to speak freely without government interference and/or regulation. The government can only interfere with approval from the Supreme Court if they have a good enough justification.
Protecting free speech is absolutely more important than curbing hate speech. Curbing hate speech might seem like an important issue that we need to find a way of dealing with, but these things being said are people’s true and honest opinions. As hard to hear and as hurtful as they can be, it is part of our constitutional right to voice our opinions. Additionally, everyone has different opinions on every situation, leaving hate speech to be different in the eyes of everyone. Although Americans seem to come to a pretty clear consensus on the criteria of what hate speech entails, it is a slippery slope once you start blocking peoples rights to voice their opinions.