Hate Speech

Filtered Freedom

Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to prepare for the future, despite the severity of the content.

As a public place designed to encourage mental stimulation, obstruction of knowledge in a library is a sociological setback. Hindering a nation’s source of intellectual growth and the entire potential of the country, will inevitably do more harm than it can good. Though one may argue that the preservation of information regarding such events could inspire new acts of hate, the past will shed light on what to do in such situations. People need to understand why the statements made in the past did not always justify their actions. It is our cultural history that provides us with insight of what is just and what is prejudiced.

Cultural values feed off freedom of expression, whether it is through censorship or the proclamation of beliefs and feelings. Such a liberty is the foundation of our country, and should not be obstructed in a place of common ground such as a library. America consists of a government that allows for various ideologies to thrive. When a library begins to lean towards any one of these ideologies, an obstruction is placed in the path of the others. This country was not designed to favor an ideology, but to allow for all belief systems to co-exist. Often whenever a certain belief system grows too popular it rules the ideals of the law makers. Furthermore, the manufactures of internet filtering software will have biased ideologies of the viewing material and will be unable to satisfy everyone. Those who do not agree are not represented and often times easily targeted through acts of intolerance thus creating a state of repression rather than progression.

There is no way to determine who decides what is safe to view and what is not. A party’s views could obstruct the distribution of vital information necessary to our society’s progression. A move to censor the opinions of others could be detrimental to a nation whose “right to a freedom speech has allowed us to generate a great intellectual community where information and opinions flow freely” (Chiang 428). Freedom of opinion is especially essential to the lawmaking process. The people should always have the power. Taking away the freedom to voice an opinion, is equivalent to taking away the power of the people. Like many others, Chiang feels “The censorship of the Internet in public libraries would be an infringement of the First Amendment” (Chiang 428). Concurring with Chiang, Dershowitz feels the country should be “an open marketplace of ideas in which hate speech is rejected on its own demerits” (Dershowitz 426). It is the decision of the people what is to be considered audible for all ears. Freedom of debate relies upon the right of free speech. Dershowitz further explains, “we in a society founded on equal protection of the law - be selective about what constitutes hate speech or who has the power to censor if offended” (Dershowitz 426). [I used the exact punctuation from Creating America] Dershowitz emphasizes the variety of hate crimes to show that a common agreement on censorship is unlikely. Therefore one can deduce that whatever degree of censorship the government decides to set, will always make somebody unhappy. No medium can be reached.

Withholding offensive material for the sake of not offending others is detrimental to the principle of freedom of individual