Question: Should we allow Hate Speech as part of freedom of speech?

Hate Speech refer to speech that is offensive, threatening, or insulting a group, based

on race, colour, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other attributes.

There has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.

Critics have argued that the term "Hate Speech" is used to silence critics of social policies

that have been poorly implemented. The question is Should we allow Hate Speech as part of

freedom of speech? I think we should allow Hate Speech as part of freedom of speech. This

is because when a conflict arises about which is more important for protecting community

interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual so that a balance can be found that

protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker. However,

developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individuals ability to exercise free

speech. In this case, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words

are likely to cause the listener to react violently but individuals do have a right to speech that

the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.

In the law of some countries, Hate Speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct,

writing, or display which is forbidden. The reason is because it incites violence or prejudicial

action against or by a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the

group and also because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the

basis of their membership to the group. In some countries, a victim of Hate Speech may seek

redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website which uses hate speech may be called

a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a

particular viewpoint. Meanwhile, Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in

several statutes. This does not necessarily mean they apply throughout the United Kingdom,
given that both Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legal systems. Any

communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress

someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

For example, between liberalism and Orthodoxy in Israel. Israel is a Jewish democracy,

founded on Jewish-Zionist values and on liberal principles. While some segments of Jewish

Orthodoxy believe that there is no room for freedom because everything is dictated by the

Almighty, liberal ideology is based on the tenets of freedom. While some segments of Jewish

Orthodoxy believe in religious-communal bonding that may require resorting to coercion,

liberalism believes in tolerance and a live and let live approach. The tension between the

two basic foundations of Israel is noticeable and significant. Moreover, Israel is surrounded

by authoritarian Arab states that have challenged its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Consequently, security considerations are prominent. Terrorism has been a serious and

continuous concern. The combination of geographic circumstances, severe security threats,

and difficult rifts within its own population yields a stressed and troubled society. Usually,

such expressions have originated with the ideological right and have been directed against

two groups of people, those who aimed to give away parts of Israels territory and Palestinian

Arabs. In this context it should be noted that Israel does not have any written guarantee of

freedom of expression. I argue that Israel needs to protect its citizens, both Jewish and non-

Jewish, as well as to protect itself as a Jewish democracy. In doing so, however, Israel should

not unnecessarily infringe on free expression or create discriminatory situations. It is no small

feat to achieve both. A balance needs to be struck between competing social interests.

Freedom of expression or speech is important as is the protection of vulnerable minorities.

 One way to deal effectively with Hate Speech is to create laws and policies that

discourage bad behaviour but do not punish bad beliefs. Besides that, create laws and policies

that do not attempt to define hate speech as hate crimes, or acts. n criminal law, penalties

are usually based on factors such as the seriousness of the act, whether it was accidental or

intentional, and the harm it caused to the victim. It is also not unusual to have crimes treated

more harshly depending upon who the victim is. For instance, punish more harshly if the

victim is a senior citizen, a young child, a police officer, or a teacher.

Conclusion, it is easier to defend someones right to say something with which you

agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly

object.