Examples Of White Supremacists

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

According to Charles R. Lawrence III, hate speech in the United States is unacceptable and represent it’s kind of restriction on the use of free speech. On his speech on hate speech, he claims that the hate speech silences the voices of the minority groups among the citizens and causes them to be excluded from free exchange of ideas and the promotion of their right to freedom of expression. In his speech, he first examines the Supreme Court outcome and decision in Brown vs. Board of Education case, where he urges that this is one of the most important facts on the equal protection laws in the United States of America. In this case, he shows that prejudice is part of racist speech. Furthermore, he extends that everyone is entitled to participation as a member of society and that separate schools undermine the idea of expression. Additionally, he asserts that hate speech restricts the involvement of these minority groups and thus it should be legislated.

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

In countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

Published by the New York Times under the Opinion section, the audience for this article is any interested reader. At the time it was released, November 18th, 2016, this article arrived during last year’s elections, in which a large, but surprising number of Americans voted for candidate Donald Trump, shocking many forecasters who had predicted otherwise. Therefore, after the election, many people may have been researching the demographics of the election, and this article, which briefly shared Brooks’ opinion on the nature of the election and how viewing others through the lens of a dominant identity influenced how the votes fell where they did, may have caught a keen reader’s eye. Also, this article came at a time where racism and prejudice caused many problems, leading some to view others as one-dimensional, represented only by a skin color or religion. Since prejudice and hate is still a large issue today, tackling this problem helps make this article relevant, nearly a year after its release.

The primary focus that the author develops lies on the idea that the problem of racist speech does not receive enough attention. Hence, Lawrence notices that people often neglect the concerns of the black community and other people who are constantly subjected to the

The landmark case speaks “directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of defeatism affected the hearts and minds” of the students (Lawrence 2088). The message still emerges in today’s society through the racial comments on minorities. The harassment and demeaning towards the minority students because of their difference in culture and race is inhumane. They deserve to be able to attend school without fearing that they might be a perpetrator's next target of racially assaulting speech. The racial slurs and “harassment often causes deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear” that filters through the victim's life (Lawrence 2088). People need to acknowledge that “there is real harm inflicted by racist speech and that this harm is far from trivial” (Lawrence 2087). By accepting Lawrence’s argument that the regulation of racist speech can alleviate the damages done to minorities, there will be a positive outcome regarding the mental health of minorities. The benefits of regulating assaultive racist speech is the diminishment of negative psychological thoughts of the minorities. Racist speech causes the minorities to think negatively about themselves since the perpetrator emphasizes that being a minority means that they are inferior, which increases the chance of the minorities clouding themselves with

On June 16, 2015, a long time television and real estate magnate by the name of Donald J. Trump opened his presidential campaign by uttering one of the most racially insensitive remarks in today’s time when he elucidated upon that notion that Mexican immigrants who come to America are not model citizens but rather rapists and murderers who undermine the legitimacy and economic fortitude of the American experiment. This racist and xenophobic remark illustrates just how entrenched the notion of white supremacy or as Walter Rodney would call it the “white cultural imperialism” ideology is inextricably tied to the understanding of our society today. Because of this problematic ideology, there must be some sort of opposition to fight against such

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

On Monday, August 14, 2017 a very controversial protest lead by white supremacists occurred Charlottesville, Virginia. The reason why this protest transpired was because the city of Charlottesville decided to remove the statue of the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee, from one of the city’s parks. The groups had met at Charlottesville to protest the decision to bring down the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Among the protests were activist Richard Spencer and former “Ku Klux Klan” (KKK) leader David Duke. They began to riot in the streets, people began to bash cars and hit people with bats, and fights broke out. One female got hit by a car and died when a car drove in the crowd.

The article states that fear has become a huge deal ever since the presidential elections divided the nation. The American President has bottled up fear within most minorities, especially in African Americans. The article suggests that Donald Trump’s focus was mainly on protecting confederate statues rather than protecting African-Americans and minorities from discrimination and violence.The author seemed to have gathered the information by completing a report on Donald Trump’s speech. The article was meant to be read by minorities who are being ignored by the president and to white Americans. This article is similar to the other article because they both describe the fear that is bottled up inside Americans, whether it is because of threats

These men not only expressed their hatred but acted out in a violent act. For example, one of the discriminatory acts or practices that was done by the white men was when they beat the victim with his own broomstick and called him names. They beat the man so bad he had a eye socket fracture and a lot of damaged to the eyes ("Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Hate Crime in Attack on Black Man", 2016). The people that are involved in the incident or not trying to make anything correct. The only thing that rectify this crime was when these two men went to jail. For example, in the article it is obvious the men didn’t see anything wrong, one man even had the audacity to make a status about it. The only thing to correct them from this outrageous crime was to arrest them. Nobody else is doing this kind of act on the regular and there was no protest or backlash. However, stereotypes are being challenged because the white men view all black men as a threat or inferior to them. Also, there had to be tension in order for such act to even happen, this crime had a motivated force behind it. The perpetrator's had a purpose to

Between the years of 1861 and 1865, the 16th president of the United states, Abraham Lincoln, was serving his second term amidst a Civil War that was being fought between the northern (Union) and southern (Confederate) United States over whether or not slavery should be abolished. An article entitled Lincoln, a White Supremacist, written by author and social historian, Lerone Bennett Jr., was written to inform it’s readers that President Lincoln was not the slave freer history makes him out to be, but was really a conservative white supremacist. Lerone Bennett Jr’s argument that Lincoln was a white supremacist is correct because of the racial prejudices he shared with his peers, his belief in white people being the superior race, and his use of the Emancipation Proclamation to damage the South rather than help the slaves.

The election of Donald Trump has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America. White nationalists, Vladimir Putin and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump’s victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear – especially African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LBGT Americans and Asian Americans. Watching white nationalists celebrate while innocent Americans cry tears of fear does not feel like

Hatred is blind inveterate anger. There is no intrinsic value in hate speech since it does not lead to the development of society. Victims of hate speech are silenced daily, “intimidated and subject to severe psychological and physical trauma by racist assailants who employ words and symbols as part of oppression and subordination.” The intent of hate speech is never to continue a conversation but to end it. Hate speech is neither mere offense of the other, nor the expression of dissatisfaction with people. Offending one another is the price of free society, but that is not what is in question. According to Mari Matsuda, hate speech is a racist speech that has to with “perpetuation of violence and degradation” of minorities. It is unjustifiable freedom that curbs others liberty by stifling their views. It relies on false facts, ignorance and bigoted ideas. As Matsuda contends, even though hate speech does not curtail all speech, it does “inhibits some expression.” Outside the context of hate speech, we can acknowledge that words are powerful: they have the ability to create both positive and negative psychological effects. For instance, compliments can build confidence, and repeated critiques can break one’s belief in oneself. In the case of hate, speech words can degrade an individual, incite fear and lead to violence. They can traumatize some from