Speaking Back on Hate Speech
Living in the United States in the 21rst century, most people feel like their rights are being violated. One of the most popular ways people accuse of being violated is by hate speech. This hate speech is currently an epidemic because hate speech is a broad term able to be applied to about everyone in any situation, and the very people who are accused of hate speech feel violated because free speech is their American right. Alan Dershowitz agrees with this in his essay What Is Hate Speech saying that one can never speak on an issue without being hateful to the other side. Is there a difference between the hate speech these people claim, and the freedom of speech given to us by the constitution? And how can one speak on a situation with out being hateful to others beliefs and values? Speaking Back is a book written by Katharine Gelber which answers these questions, defining the difference between hate speech and free speech, and also showing a format of speaking respectfully on others beliefs and values without being offensive or vulgar. She calls this way of speaking, 'Speaking Back'. This method of speaking can be very effective when used appropriately, and although Martin Luther King's, Letter to the Clergymen, was w
Violation of American's rights will always be a controversial issue, because of all of the variations in interpretations of the constitution. Martin Luther King's piece also falls within this idea, since Martin Luther King's piece was in response to the clergymen's bias letter addressing the direct action, taking place in Alabama. Dershowitz arrives at this conclusion in an effort to avoid censoring of these issues which would destroy the American right of free speech. By showing the invalidity of the statement and showing how your view is valid, your response will both be productive and positive. He shows over and over in his letter why the clergymen's argument is invalid, and why his actions our appropriate in this situation. She also stresses to keep this posure in your speaking and writing while responding to hate-speech because in doing so it counteracts the effect of the negative speech. Through his many speeches, and direct acts against inequality in races during his time period, king significantly helped change the actions within our society. and undo the perlocutionary effects of the hate-speech" (Gelber 119). Hate speech is not a necessity in American Culture, unlike free speech which is. Although Dershowitz's open market place idea would allow people to have exposure to both sides, it also has no way of distinguishing between sides. Saying there is no solution to hate speech but the answer is to accept this hate speech in an open market place of ideas, in which people reject what is hateful to them. In doing so he shows how taking any side on an issue can be considered hate speech, leaving no true definition for it. King's piece shows how speaking on hate speech can be used productively to eliminate a problem in society, without using violence. This definition unlike Dershowitz's is very strict allowing little variation, and unlike Dershowitz, Gelber sees no need of hate speech in any culture. This betters Dershowitz idea because not only does it prevent censoring, allowing any issue to be brought about, but also denounces violence that can result from opposite views on issues.
Common topics in this essay:
Luther King's,
Dershowitz Gelber,
Hate Speech,
Birmingham Alabama,
Saying Paul,
Letter Clergymen,
Living United,
hate speech,
Violation American's,
Katharine Gelber,
Katherine Gelber,
martin luther,
martin luther king's,
free speech,
luther king's,
gelber's idea,
king's letter,
king's piece,
'speaking back',
luther king's letter,
clergymen's letter,
example gelber's,
luther king's piece,
solution hate speech,
hate speech necessity,
|
Acceptance Essays
