Essay - Tolerance for Hate Speech

Extract

[...] To what limit is tolerance acceptable without affecting a healthy social order? Striking the balance between freedom of speech against intolerable hate speech is a contentious issue among forces siding along the two opposing flanks. The bone of contention lies in the social cost of tolerating hate speech and acknowledging the impact of dialogues as foundations of unhealthy boils to the social order. Many a times, free speech is regarded as a social power through which various groups in the society make their position known to others. [...]

[...] Such occasions have in the past gone unpunished but their present impact of instigating global violence has forced government to push reforms in the administration of such sites to hedge against such risk. For instance, the French government is at the forefront calling for Twitter, Facebook and other social sites to prosecute hate speech mongers in line with laws already on the books (Farago, Para 9). This calls for each nation to exercise its privilege in striking balance between tolerating free expression against protecting human dignity. Many a times, human activists have embraced the view that banning hate speech in the TV serials and films is the solution. [...]

[...] However, this should not trick the society to bear with the cases of incitement and criminalizing speeches. This demand taking serious response and criticism, given that all Surname 3 atrocities and violence endured in the world over generations initially started with a few voices individuals condemning others (Luscombe, Para 5). Democratically, human beings have a right to their opinion which should be heard and acted upon. However, this does not demand an absolute right for all the voices with their present and potential implications signalled right from the context with their wording. [...]

[...] However, there is no ideological reason and logic why one should tolerate anything running contrary to their values (Baroff, Para 7). Consequently, individuals should stand their ground and unanimously condemn instances infringing the sanctity of human beings rather than leave such responsibilities to policymakers. Conclusion Tolerating hate speech starts with the self as the primary recipients of such statements. Therefore, rather than watch out for government hand through anti-hate speech legislation, individuals should shun tolerating opinions of others which they believe is deeply off the beam. This calls for rational discussion and logical argumentation adhering to societal values. [...]

[...] Such would limit the foreseeable consequences of offensive incidents and hostility emerging from the spread of tolerating demeaning speeches. Surname 5 Bibliography Baroff, Paula. “Mandating 'Tolerance' Through Hate Speech Laws is no Tolerance at All.” 27 September April 2013 Cengtz, Orhan Kemal. LimitlessTolerance For Hate Speech and Violence.” 26 December April 2013 Farago, Jason. Praise of Vallaud-Belkacem, or Why not to Tolerate Hate Speech on Twitter.” 2 January April 2013 Luscombe. [...]