1

Protecting Hate Speech and Freedom Of Speech Will Lead to Innovation and The

Furthering In The Progression Of Society

Protecting Hate Speech and Freedom Of Speech Will Lead to Innovation and The

Furthering In The Progression Of Society

Nick Claman

Dallas Center-Grimes

Should their be the ability to have free thought and express ones ideas even if they are

different than others or should we pick and choose what we deem hateful to prevent abusive or

hateful speech. Waves of political correctness have swept the nation especially across college

campuses because of what students consider to be hate speech. This idea of what is hate speech

restricts free expression of ideas which could slow progression among communication with

students especially diverse campuses. These opposing ideas of speech conflicts with the morals

and ethics of multiple groups. Those who want to put punishments on hate speech have the

morals that tell them what is right is to protect individuals from harassment and possible

triggering of certain phrases that remind them of a traumatic experience. Those who support
 2

protecting hate speech have morals that tell them what is right is to communicate all ideas even if

some may deem them hateful. Which brings me to my points that if words or phrases are chosen

as hate speech then there will be ultimate fear of expressing ideas or thoughts for fear of violent

backlash. Also if it was outlawed there would be no legitimate way to stop it from continuing to

happen. And lastly if hate speech was outlawed all opinions would be the same which would

mean no debate and no progression.

When people pick and choose what words are considered hate speech it creates no

incentive for free expression of ideas from fear of backlash. Across college campuses political

correctness is sweeping across the nation as students consider words and phrases to be hate

speech so they assign certain designated areas to be free speech zones. Free speech is not

much of free speech when it is confined to a certain area and cannot be said anywhere anytime.

People now fear in college campuses of saying anything not politically correct as there could

be violent backlash. An instance of this is the Berkeley protest when UC Berkeley students

violently protested the upcoming speech of conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Students

were included with the protesters and threw rocks, set fires, tore down metal barricades, and one

woman was pepper sprayed during an interview because she was wearing a Trump hat.

(Park/Lah, 2017, 8) Students and others will violently attack those who use politically incorrect

words or those deemed hate speech just like Yiannopoulos. It seems almost hypocritical to use

hate in the form of violence to combat hate in the form of words and expression as it solves

nothing. This violence is created when two opposing morals and ideas clash causing violence

without a rational solution. When you act like a child and whine and hit because you cant get

what you want no one will want to listen to you in the future. This leads to no incentive for free

expression of speech and ideas. Free speech should be allowed everywhere, no one should
 3

control what thought or belief from your self comes out of your mouth. The more there is

restriction on hate speech the more there is restriction on free speech, this will eventually lead

to protests from those supporting free speech or hate speech. Even when one person believes a

speech to not be hateful others do when there may not even be a reason for it they are just

offended. Real hate speech is ones that produces a meaningful hateful rhetoric, one that you can

understand was only said with anger. Hate speech is not saying words that are not politically

correct. What really is hate speech is much more than that and much different, it is that that

ignores the feelings of those who have been abused or seen or been victims of horrific things.

Those across college campuses that strike down those that speak differently are the real ones that

are hateful. That is real hate speech.

Event if hate speech would not be protected there would be no way to stop it or

outlaw it. Many European countries have laws that outlaw or put penalties on speech that is

threatening in manner or incites racism and violence such as the European Convention of Human

Rights (ECHR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (CERD). These conventions formed laws that in many European country outlaw

speech that can be interpreted as hateful, abusive or racist. These laws are just simply pushing

the boundary on what can be interpreted as free expression and free speech. These laws can be so

ridiculous that they can offenders can even be given jail time for simply saying their own beliefs

that conflict with others. Such as an atheist, Harry Taylor, from the United Kingdom satirized

Christianity and Islam in an airport prayer room and was given a six month prison sentence.

Once again talk about real hate speech and hypocrisy. When hate speech is outlawed more and

more words are deemed hateful when they may not be hateful it is that the listener does not want

to hear an idea or opinion that is different than their own. This is the reason many European
 4

countries are outlawing what they deem to be hate speech. With their open border policies that

allow for immigration from anywhere anytime a person speaks and mentions something relating

to another country, where immigrants have probably immigrated from, in a negative manner it is

deemed hate speech especially by these European countries. They have immigrants from all over

the world come into European countries where they hear the expression of ideas that is different

than their own and then complain because apparently their feelings should be prioritized over the

basic rights of a human being to freedom of expression and thought. One of the main reasons

freedom of speech is so powerful and remains strong in America is because Americans believe

the government shouldnt be able to create laws outlawing offensive speech against minorities in

public whereas Europeans think just the opposite. According to Pew Research 67% of Americans

should be able to say these things publicly but with Europe only 46% said they people should be

able to say these things publicly. Germany had the lowest percentage supporting this type of

speech in public at just 27%. Germany in 2015 also had the third highest rate of immigration in

the European Union which can be a reason they have absurd speech laws like one recently

proposed that would fine social media sites up to 50 million euros for not removing threatening

or slanderous content.

If hate speech was banned then there would be no difference of opinion which means no

debate and no progression and innovation. If there were no restrictions on speech there could be

more innovation than there actually is. Many European Union countries already rank among the

top 25 Global Innovation Index which is ranked by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Many of these ranked EU countries are very diverse counties because of open border policies but

they also do have many restrictions on speech. If these restrictions and laws were lifted then the

diverse population of the EU would allow for the interchanging of new ideas and debate. One
 5

things for certain and that is that the interchanging of ideas and debate will always lead to

innovation. Another thing is for certain and that is believing in one idea and deeming all other

disagreeing ideas hate speech or just not true because it doesnt follow your agenda and

outlawing it just slows innovation. Debate is part of everyday political procedure. Debate is the

reasoning between multiple ideas to choose the one that benefits the society the most, and when

people are finding more and more words offensive and hateful, like what is going on across U.S

college campuses and EU countries, there is no opportunity for debate and no ability to better the

society. If the people who protests forms of what they deem hate speech because they think it

would better their society than they need to understand that the only way to better the place they

live in is allowing debate and the freedom to express ideas even if they may disagree with one's

own. Life is hard and people need to grow up.

Of course those with extreme ideas of actual hate speech could lead to deaths of others

and the incentive to use violence or racism. People with a strong persuasive tone and manner

could convince almost anyone to do anything and this is the same with hate speech. If you have a

person who is very persuasive and using personal connections to the audience than they could

get them to do anything even if that means using violence.

Sweeping across the United States college campuses and especially European Union

members with very open border policies is political correctness. It is the belief that certain words

need to be prevented from being said because they could be deemed hateful or offensive to

others. In the United States our 1st Amendment right is hitting a breaking point unless something

is done to change the path of speech. And especially in European Union speech and freedom to

express ideas is already nearly past tipping point with laws that can put you in jail for difference

of beliefs. If something isnt done than what is deemed hate speech will be turned into ideas that
 6

are of difference of those of whoever is in power. If this happens than we would be essentially

turn into a more modernized version of North Korea where there would be very little innovation

and all opposers would be severely punished.

Personally I believe freedom of expression and though should be protected at all costs

across the world. I think we need free speech and get over what we deem hate speech because as

said in previous paragraphs there would be no room for debate. And debate always leads to

progression and innovation. Just like our founding fathers debated on how to create the

constitution, they didnt just agree to everything or keep their mouths shut to those in charge,

they debated peacefully without violence.

 7

Reference Page

Poushter, J. (2015, November 20). 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive
to minorities. Retrieved April 21, 2017, fromhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

Rueters. (2017, March 14). New German Law Would Fine Social Sites Over Hate
Speech. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-hate-
speech-legislation/

European Hate Speech Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.legal-
project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws

Burleigh, N. (n.d.). BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY: CENSORSHIP AND POLITICAL

CORRECTNESS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES HAVE TURNED THOSE BATTLING
AGAINST 'HATE SPEECH' INTO A GENERATION THAT HATES SPEECH. Retrieved
April 21, 2017, from http://ezproxy.heartlandaea.org:2066/eds/detail/detail?
vid=2&sid=e2cf0c5f-16e5-4365-a4cb-
10c2a66a9d1e@sessionmgr4008&hid=4211&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU=#AN=
edsgcl.454678933&db=edsgao