The Importance Of Socratic Dialogue

Author Michael Lieberman’s article, “Hate Crime Laws: Punishment to Fit the Crime”, discusses that violence is intentionally and specifically targeted at individuals because of their personal, and immutable characteristics (Lieberman 81). Based on this statement, it is obvious that when a person mumbles some racial slur under their breath, one can conclude that it is intentional and may lead to some type of confrontation. For example, an openly gay or lesbian student attending college is constantly being taunted and ridiculed because if his or her sexual orientation. Every time the student passes by a particular group of students, they yell out the words “queer” or “faggot”. Based on this example, it is evident that hate crimes do not occur by accident but that they are premeditated and well thought out in advance.

The emotional damage that is inflicted upon a person of a hate speech is very harmful. “Some of these students came to college as a means of escaping a life dominated by race-based discrimination but found an environment more hostile than they had expected.” (Marcus 147). If our students do not feel safe while at school they will not attend school, if the number of educated people go down at a

Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. (MLK Jr. 223)

Harvey A. Silvergate stated in his article, “Muzziling Free Speech”, that “Our entire Country is a free speech zone, and that our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.” Free speech, in the form of hate speech, should be not regulated on American college campuses. Should hate speech be discouraged? Of course! However, developing policies that limit hate speech runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. The University of California System’s response to banning hate speech, speech codes in universities, law cases Doe v. University of Michigan and Sigma Chi Fraternity v George Mason University, and the view points of law professor Greg Margarian, proves why we should protect hate speech, even though it may seem wrong.

This to me can be summed up in one word: sad. It’s truly saddening to me that we’ve become this way. Where everything is taken to the most extreme levels and assumed to be hate speech or that it of course must be meant in the worst possible way. There are of course times where people do take things too far and mean them in the worst of ways. Although, that is not what this is about. This is about the destruction of free speech to the extent of teaching people to might as well not have “free thinking.” We might as well go around apologizing to one another for the things we thought or even almost thought. Not to mention if we almost, or almost though about, them being said? Wouldn’t that be

Many times when we hear from someone who has been on both (or more) sides of an issue their message has a little more meaning than usual solely because they can provide more insight from the other side. During his presentation Mr. Pearce said that ‘we need to learn to argue and not quarrel. That arguing with others gives us the opportunity to learn more about the other person(s),’ (Pearce). Mr. Pearce’s message was very applicable to the world that we live in today because we are becoming divided and less understanding of others and their beliefs. Not everyone is going to have the same values and beliefs and we need to learn to accept that as well as hear them out as to why they hold those beliefs and accept their reasons even if we believe them to be

Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” There has been a controversial issue regarding hate speech and the laws that prohibit it. The right to freedom of expression reassures each person the right to express themselves in ideas and opinions without the government's interference. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment and should not be expressed towards others because it causes harm. In this essay I will talk about the effects harmful hate speech caused to others and to the groups treated as insignificant. I will also discuss how hate speech cannot

The Freedom of speech is very expansive filled with loop holes and with this comes many cases that have change the American history. The rights of free speech, free express for all such as gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability has help to encourage society development and helps to encourage equality for everyone. It is always bad intention to use the right of to fuel hate, prejudice and other crimes of violence. For example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case that challenged the speech of individual speech that was exhibit imminent lawless action or used words to incite or direct an action.

Differences seem to be the only thing we see in our world today- different appearances, different ideas, different cultures and beliefs. They are what define us; what give us each a uniqueness that is the reason our species thrives. But, when we are not accepting of our differences, when we refuse to see that our outlook on life is not the only one, many conflicts can arise. Unfortunately, this happens all too often, with differences often being seen in a negative light, casting the shadow of conflict over the world. However, there is an easy fix to this problem, although simple is not always equal to easy. Yet, I believe that when we connect to those different from ourselves, we can open up a path to a more peaceful society.

Envision ambulating down the street and then out of the blue someone shouts obscenities predicated on the way people look or because of what they affiliate with. Incidents involving animosity happen everyday, and most are looked at as daily occurrences. With the current state of hate speech laws, there is nothing that could be done to put culpability on the instigator. Hate has a strong connection to United States history. Slaves were a result of being hateful to those who were different, and Jim Crow laws were also a consequence of this hatred. As much time has passed since then, America has become more progressive, although there are still people who are hateful of others for they way they are. Hate speech laws are necessary in the United States and should be passed because passing them would create and foster a more tolerant society, help to decrease the negative risk associated with them, and prevent violent acts of hate which tend to be preceded by hate speech.

What is a hate speech for one may be an empowering speech for another. Many believe these speeches contribute to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs that allow for several different aspects of a situation to be analyzed. Others believe these words will start violent actions against those hated upon. However, old adages about sticks and stones exist for a reason: they are true. No matter the individual, people are capable of ignoring the hate if they so wish. Sometimes, many make claims so outrageous that not even the most zealous of advocates would argue them, bold statements such as saying all Middle Easterners should be tortured because they are all terrorists. It is not worth anyone’s time to argue against these, and creating a political issue surrounding that claim makes one appear foolish. However, several hate speeches are beneficial to the

Accepting the differences of others by expanding your own level of understanding begins with the awareness that your own culture

Just a couple of months ago white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville to protest the tearing down of the statue of Robert E Lee. The racism and hate they spread through their march is unquestionably disgusting and serves no purpose in our society today. This event has led to social media sites such as Twitter to crack down even harder in a plight they started over a year ago to silence hateful speech. While there are some occasional dissenters, the general population agrees with the opinion that this speech is awful in every sense. With that being said, censoring their right to free speech is a bit too rash. We can all agree that free speech is one of the most important rights we have, and with President Trump throwing around the term “fake news” at major news organizations, it is more important than ever to protect that freedom. The article “The case for restricting hate speech” by Laura Beth Nielsen of the Los Angeles Times gives an argument for why hate speech should be censored. While she provides valid points, with the absence of factual statistics, none of them are strong enough to support her thesis that hate speech should be banned. I believe that in almost every instance, hate speech should remain protected just as much as our right to free speech.

Even though hate speech can be damaging to the targeted victims, it still cannot be set to a standard or principle because it is hard to define what is and is not hate speech. Hate speech is so wide-ranging and vast, no limit can be set to regulate it. What some groups may consider to be hateful and demeaning, others groups deem to be their founding principles and beliefs. A study taken place at University of Colorado quotes, "Often, when hate speech prohibitions are in place, people engaged in serious intergroup conflicts simply refuse to talk at all, preventing constructive problem solving and allowing tensions to build." American Civil Liberties Union suggests the best way to counterattack hate speech is to not censor it, but to respond with more moral speech. ACLU goes by the principles that the rights of free speech are indivisible:

Dialogue is different from any other tool of the techniques it is method for problem-formulation and problem-solving technologies. Dialogue is essential for understanding culture and sub culture, for that instance organizational learning will probably depend upon such cultural understanding. Because of the high revolution seen in the technology and technological advancement its essential for an organization to accept the path of dialogue. There are many subunits had been formed in organization because of knowledge based information, geographies, market, product, and technology. So this subunits transform their subcultures. So organization have to require some mental models. And this