Abstract
The paper looks at how several college campuses across the country have tried to address the issue of hate speech by passing regulations to control such speech, though this approach raises troubling questions about the limits of free speech and the degree to which any form of speech can be regulated. The paper discusses how the issue extends beyond speech today as haters have undertaken a new tactic by placing nooses on college campuses and in other locations as a silent threat to African-Americans. The paper discusses how hate speech codes were a response to a perceived problem but may have over-reacted by the way they were phrased.

From the Paper
"Several college campuses across the country have tried to address the issue of hate speech by passing regulations to control such speech, though this approach raises troubling questions about the limits of free speech and the degree to which any form of speech can be regulated. The issue extends beyond speech today as haters have undertaken a new tactic by placing nooses on college campuses and in other locations as a silent threat to African-Americans. Hate speech codes were a response to a perceived problem but may have over-reached by the way they were phrased. Many were ruled against by the courts, while others have generated opposition and been repealed. Still, the impetus to try to prevent hate..."

Tags:hate, speech, codes

Abstract
This paper answers the following questions: Is the probability that violent speech will result in violence actually being carried out sufficient to curtail such speech? Furthermore, is speech that urges or advocates violence and that shows how to engage in violent acts acceptable under the First Amendment? Finally, aside from legal solutions, what measures are available to national leaders and to private citizens to discourage incendiary hate and to promote civility and respect? And, the most important question of all - is violent speech a right? After considering each of these questions in turn, the paper concludes that violent speech is not a right because divergent opinions can be articulated without resorting to name-calling or to the threatening of others.

From the Paper
"This paper answers the following questions: Is the probability that violent speech will result in violence actually being carried out sufficient to curtail such speech? Furthermore, is speech that urges or advocates violence and that shows how to engage in violent acts acceptable under the First Amendment? Finally, aside from legal solutions, what measures are available to national leaders and to private citizens to discourage incendiary hate and to promote civility and respect? And, most of all - the most important question of all - is violent speech a right?"

Tags:free, speech, violence

Abstract
This paper is an in-depth examination of how to deal with the issue of hate speech. The author looks at the Constitution, specifically at the contradictions between the 14th Amendment and the concept of freedom of speech. The author looks at some of the commentary written by Jon Locke, or Jon Stuart Mill, and even Aristotle, on the problem of freedom of speech. The author presents historical and modern-day examples of some of the conflicts that have occurred in trying to determine the parameters of freedom of speech, and hate speech in our society.

From the Paper
"John Locke would probably have weighed in on the importance of limiting the speech before it gets to the point where person feels that he or she is endangered. His empirical system of philosophy emphasized the importance of the experience of the senses in pursuit of knowledge rather than intuitive speculation or deduction. Having come into this world with our minds entirely free of innate conceptions, Locke argued that all human thought is based upon experience. And it is the experiences of minorities within American culture that makes them fear the consequences of hate speech; they have learned through their experiences in the world that bigoted speech easily and often turns into bigoted action (Dunn 48). Another essential part of Locke's philosophy was that all persons are born equal, which would no doubt incline him to value the equal protection of each person under the rule of law (Dunn 121)."

Tags:speech, freedom, constitution, framers, locke, mill, aristotle, hate, democratic, ammendment, fourteenth, hate, internet, practice, law, racist, anti, gay, lesbian, doctrine, free, power, religious, economic, political, minorities, tyranny, choice

Abstract
The paper discusses how in recent years, with the emergence of speech codes on university campuses, the general presence of political correctness in our society, and with the recent furor sparked by the possibility that the fairness doctrine might re-emerge (which could strangle conservative talk radio), the issue of free speech has once again become a matter of heated public debate. The paper answers the question of whether or not violent speech is a right; the paper also explores Cass Sunstein's over-arching view that speech which counsels violence or incites hatred should be curtailed in the interests of maintaining respect, civility and in the interest of maintaining public order.

From the Paper
"In recent years, with the emergence of speech codes on university campuses, the general presence of political correctness in our society, and with the recent furor sparked by the possibility that the fairness doctrine might re-emerge (which could strangle conservative talk radio), the issue of free speech has once again become a matter of heated public..."

Tags:violent, speech, right

Abstract
The paper discusses the American ideal of universally protecting constitutional rights to free speech and contrasts this to Canada's support of hate speech and hate crime laws. The paper focuses on "R. v. Keegstra", the famous Canadian hate speech case, and shows how the Canadian stand on hate speech is supported by the constitution and promotes the uniquely Canadian vision of a free and democratic society. The paper asserts that resistance in the US to take such a stand is reflective of the continual desire to retain ideology that does not reflect a real need for change.

From the Paper
"It is a clear that the issue of hate crimes and hate speech is an essential and important issue that must be debated in nearly every nation, as all nations have and live discrimination to one degree or another. Discrimination invades the standards and actions of some against others and whether covertly or overtly affects the advantage or opportunity of others and can also create circumstances of depravity of needs or even overt physical and mental abuse. Discrimination, usually against minorities, but most often against any population that does not serve as the central authority to decisions making is an insidious aspect of civilization and must be addressed fundamentally by all. Hate speech is a particularly insidious aspect of overt discrimination that falls only just short of being physical abuse. This type of discrimination is based entirely upon circumstances of one's life over which one has absolutely no control over, often race, gender or even sexual preference. It then goes without saying that hate speech, in written or spoken form is something that needs to be addressed when and where it occurs and in many cases this attempt is made at the core with social mores and taboos, often beginning when individuals are very young."

Tags:diversity, discrimination, Keegstra, anti-Semitism, free, speech

Abstract
This paper examines the issue of free speech, with special emphasis on the American college campus. The writer argues that free speech should never be banned or regulated as it is a protected right under the United States Constitution. The author examines how today's college administrators wrestle with the idea of free speech at their institutions. The author concludes that free speech must exist in order for the Constitution to be protected and so students can continue to grow in their ability to ascertain fact from fiction.

Outline:
Introduction
The Subjectivity of it All
The Ultimate Decision
Conclusion

From the Paper
"As much as most individuals will agree that certain speech is hurtful to others society by and large has the ability to correct itself by ignoring or shunning those who insist on voicing opinions that are unpopular or hateful and college students are capable of the same shunning which in turn brings pressure to the speech giver to cease and desist.
We cannot pick and choose which part of the constitution we are going to protect as the entire document embodies what the founding fathers intended when they put it together."

Tags:free, speech, hate, university, campuses, First, Amendment

Abstract
As colleges struggle to handle the various differences their students and faculty embody, the problem of "hate speech" has become a focal point of educational erudition and policy-making. The paper shows that in the most deliberate and alarming cases, hate speech is projected to degrade or disgrace those at whom it is directed, usually colored people, gays, lesbians, the physically or mentally challenged and women, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion or ability. This essay discusses the current dominant structure within which the matter of hate speech is being debated. This structure draws heavily on the discussion of the Fourteenth and the First Amendments, which in the author's opinion, are not adequate to cope with the issue of hate speech. There is a pressing need for extra-legal standards for communicative interaction to handle this sensitive issue.

From the Paper
"Those discussing the hate speech on college campuses often support either the Fourteenth or the First Amendments, depending on their political preferences. Fourteenth Amendment advocates the value of "equal protection" while the First Amendment supports "freedom of speech". Due to this general tendency to rely more and more on various laws, it is not unexpected that hate speech should also be conceived legalistically."

Tags:Fourteenth, discriminatory, collective, defamation, free, speech

Abstract
A discussion of whether political speech today is rhetorical. The paper analyses the meaning of rhetorical speech and how this is applied to political speech. The argument for and against the use of rhetorical speech in the political arena is discussed and its affects analyzed. The ideas of Beard are discussed and applied to present day politics.

From the Paper
"Many individuals view rhetoric as a means of manipulation, not persuasion. When rhetoric is applied to political speech, therefore, it may be concluded that the politician is attempting to sway the public's opinion in a manner that is unjust and false. While rhetoric focuses on the appealing to emotion, religious values, and the structure and cultural value of the community, it can also be argued that rhetoric serves the public by inspiring them to alter the way in which society functions, and the paths that are elected for the future (Garsten 10). Beard discusses that rhetoric has three main parts in a political speech, repetition, contrast pairs and pronouns. These elements are evident in each political speech of substance that has affected the lives of its listeners profoundly. Arnold Schwarzenegger, having immigrated to the United States, participating in famous bodybuilding and movie careers, became.."

Tags:political, speech, rhetoric

Abstract
This report discusses free speech, the constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the interpretation of the laws. The issue of the interpretation by the Supreme Court is discussed, to include recent cases regarding free speech. The paper further discusses the history of free speech, and broaches on the topic of the issues, controversies, and concepts that will decide the future of free speech in the country.

From the Paper
"Freedom of speech in the United States has been a right that most Americans have clung to since the inception of the Constitution in 1787 ("Constitution"). John Paul Stevens discusses the fact that throughout history people have been persecuted for voicing their opinions about any number of concerns in their lives, and that they have been unjustly executed for allowing their voices to be heard (1293). Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, and the Proctor family of Salem, Massachusetts were all victims of the world's intolerance of opinion. The Framers of the Constitutions believed that there were rights that each individual was entitled to, and that in the United States those rights had to be protected at all costs."

Tags:speech, freedom, rights

Abstract
This paper explains that "The Book of Amos" from the Old Testament Bible is a prophecy warning of the doom of the people who have reached an ultimate state of corruption and moral decadence. The author of the paper points out that, to interpret the overall message of the prophecy, it is essential to look first at the literary style and the specific rhetorical strategies employed by the author. The paper then describes the prophecy, which contains an accusation, a threat for punishment and doom and a final allusion to a future harmonious state in which the ones who escape the doom will live happily following God's ways once again.

From the Paper
"Moreover, the economical and political realities are also relevant. Wolff identifies this set of political and economical realities as a form of early capitalism, in which almost all the forms of political corruption were present: bribery, violence, injustice, social inequality and so on: "The converse of this development was social upheaval. The rich became richer while the poor became poorer. Such early capitalism quickly led to expropriation of the holdings of the smaller landowners. The ancient Israelite land rights were superseded by Canaanite practice."

Tags:antithesis humanity, cultic speech forms, judgment hope