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 written decades before Gelber's piece came about. His use of persuasion through logic, while never being offensive or vulgar throughout, makes his piece a working example of Gelber's idea of 'speaking back'. Correctly using Gelber's speaking back policy would reduce violence resulting from hate speech, and also leave less people feeling violated by one anothers different ideas.
             In Alan Dershowitz, What is Hate Speech, he tries to define hate speech, showing the endless ways hate speech can be applied. In doing so he shows how taking any side on an issue can be considered hate speech, leaving no true definition for it. He portrays hate speech as a necessity in th...