Why? Because like the holocaust, 9/11, and many other crimes are caused by hate speech. There is a 99.9 percent chance that hate speeches can cause all this, because it brainwashes people. For example: Osoma bin ladin teaches his people bad things by hate speech. In fact, it caused 9/11. So banning public hate speeches can save millions of lives
Hate speech causing violence has happened over and over again, from the Nazis to hate crimes today. History has proved over and over again that hate speech incites violence. It is also proved by the daily beast that hate speech is a direct cause of violence. Hate speech is also not protected by the constitution, according to Izmir university in turkey
Yes hate speech is the precursor of crimes and violence. The reason being that it indicates the presence of hate. It also spreads the hate to the impressionable.
This does not mean that someones speech will translate to violence, only that the possibility is there.
What should worry people however is a rise in and normalization of hate speech. An increase in hate speech not only represents more hate but also that a vindication of that hate. This leads to people feeling a crime against the hated group is less serious than against a normal person similar to someone feeling that shooting a dog is less serious than a person.
The normalization of hate speech is also a very big threat. It represents that the hate is becoming ingrained in our culture and can give rise to violent organizations gaining power (nazis being a prime example).
Whether there should be legal action against hate speech is another matter. But yes hate speech, especially a rise of it, is a precursor to crimes and violence.
The entire Nazi party supported Hitler for mainly one reason: he was excellent at presenting speeches. He had the abilty to make people follow him by speech. The Oklahoma City bombing was motivated by hate speech and many peaceful protests started horrid massacres. The answer is clearly yes. There is overwhelming evidence to support this claim.
Hate speech not only encourages hate on a personal level, but can justify ACTIONS of hate against and individual or group of persons. I personally experienced this in my childhood; a relative was always talking bad about a particular ethnic group. When I was about 7 years old, we had a family of that ethnicity as neighbors. She was about a year younger than I. She said something I didn't like, and I poked that little girl in the arm with some scissors we were playing with!! I didn't see that I had done anything wrong because I thought she 'deserved' it, after all, according to my relative, they weren't nice people so it's ok to hurt them. I will never forget that little girl's face, it has haunted me all my life. Is hate speech a precursor to crime and violence? You bet it is!!
Even with free speech, people should still be careful of their speech. One's speech may not physically injure whomever it's addressing, however people who hear the speech that agree with it may commit violence to the ones being addressed. After all while one might not intend for their speech to be taken seriously, people who support said speech may act upon it.
Differences in opinions are greatly accepted and encouraged. It is completely fine for people to dislike one another and voice their opinions. However there is no place for those opinions to be voiced aggressively, rudely or viciously. Also, if one is going to make a comment against a person or a a group of people there must be a justifiable purpose behind that comment. It is not okay to just say something negative just for the heck of it. Individual opinions are encouraged but think before you speak
When you use hate speech, you believe what you are saying to that group of people. There is sure to come a time when you are confronted with a member of that group, and your rage comes to a boil. Your hatred that has built up from saying hateful things will overflow, and you will become violent. There is always going to be that tipping point, where your words become actions.
Someone can think, in their head, that they hate something or someone. But, when it is said out loud, it becomes more real to the person. I was raised in a racist family, and it was told to me over and over to hate other races. The town I lived in did not have many other races, so I felt safe. But, once I moved and was around other races, I felt myself feel unsafe, and it was because of what I was told.
I truly believe in the "gateway" effect. Most people think of drugs when talking about this term. But, in this case, take a person who is prejudice against Indians. They call them names and protest about anything they have to do. With no consequences given to this person for their hate, he will feel above any punishment and think that, "hey, if I can slander them and no one does anything to stop me, what else can I get away with?" See where I'm going?
All speech is protected by US law; except libel, and the exhortation to immediate violence. One man's facts can be another man's hate speech. If you don't agree on the common values of respecting all ideas, and the individuals right to argue them in the marketplace, the most powerful will be the people that win. In other words people will go from argument to violence.
Hate speech is not good for the people in our society, but it ultimately does not change anything. These views ( be they racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) exist in the world and refusing to hear them will not change that. It is the views, not the freedom to express it, that causes violence. Allowing people who hold views that are morally wrong to share them gives others the ability to refute their ideas.
You could say that speech against abusive practices to animals or destruction of habitats leads to ecoterrorism. You could say that people who speak angrily about rape are encouraging vigilanteism.
You could say people speaking about almost any issue are encouraging violence, because it's possible that someone will hear their speech and then get the idea that peaceful methods aren't enough. Using this logic civil rights and Vietnam War protesters should've been arrested for hate speech. It is the person who chooses to engage in violence who is responsible for that violence. The speaker is only responsible if they speak explicitly in favor of violence.
No matter the standard you cannot accurately trace speech to actions. Hate speech such as it exists must be handled in the arena of ideas. In a free society discrimination should be allowed in so far as it does not infringe on the rights of others. No one has the right to not be offended.
In a free society, there are often opinions that many find offensive or extreme. Some forms of offensive speech have been labeled "hate speech", when it is hostile towards certain minority groups. While it may be offensive, it is no more an instigation to violence than hostile speech against a certain political party, religious denomination, or profession. The responsibility for violence ultimately lays with those who commit the violence.
Hateful rhetoric is not always a gateway to physical violence and legal disobedience. While it is true that a sliver of speakers or listeners of hate speech do act out, it is my belief that the First Amendment actually prevents violence here. When hate speech is done, the speaker does so because they know they have the right to speak publicly. In some cases, simply being able to vent their emotions verbally is enough to stop them from taking action. In other cases, by publicly making their feelings known, the authorities and law enforcement know who can be trouble and can keep an eye on them.
I do not believe that hate speech is a precursor to mores serious crimes and violence. While someone making a hate-related speech, or just ranting while using what is considered hateful words, may not be pleasant to the ears, I do not think it generally leads to violence. People in America should be allowed to say whatever they want.
Many people are more than willing to discuss their feeling about a subject and more than a few will express quite disturbing opinions that they hold. However, it is the rare human who is willing to take their views a step further into actions that equate to violence or destruction. If nothing else, most people are not willing to put their lives in risk of incarceration. Obviously, there is the rare individual who would, but they are few and far between.
There is a reason why freedom of speech is included in the very first amendment to The Constitution. While hate speech may be morally wrong, it very much is protected by law. It has been been reviewed many times and has always met with the same conclusion: It is protected under the constitution.
I believe hate speech does not necessarily lead people to serious actions because the escalation to violence is much more complicated than language. I hold this as true because at any given moment there are thousands of people preaching hate, when only few are doing the crimes. If hate speech lead direction to violence, then why are all those who agree with the speaker not out committing crimes? This is simple, because even those who propagate hate through speech are talking to an audience, even if they agree, that has morals and/or fear the repercussions of acting on their beliefs. These people may hate, but the repercussions are more than they are willing to pay for their believes. Only true zealots will commit the crimes.