The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Basically, we the people have the freedom of speech and press. However, when does free speech cross into hate speech?

            We had an activity in class where we evaluated three arguments, one of which was about the ethics of speech. The argument stated ‘The government should be empowered to punish people who express racist, sexist, or xenophobic sentiments publicly. Today's society has no place for those kinds of public expressions.” When asked what we thought about this, if we agreed with it or not, there were a variety of answers. Some people said that the right for someone to express their opinion has to be supported, even if their opinion is bigoted and ignorant.  While others disagreed, including myself to some extent. Our class discussion only scratched the surface of a much bigger and deeper ethical debate.

            In a BCC news article, titled ‘A Point of View: Why we should defend the right to be offensive’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34613855) argues that free speech can uncomfortable, but it needs to be defended even when it gives offence to others. The article brings up the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006, an act made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act states that it is an offence to stir up hatred towards religious and racial groups. However, the term ‘stir up hatred’ is very transparent. Something someone considers hatred might not be considered hate by another. Who gets the final say in what is hate and what is not? Is it the judge? If so, that is the opinion of one person, thus being extremely biased and subjective. What about if it’s a majority vote? If so, then the population would need to be very diverse and well represented in order to objectively vote on the matter. What about if the person ‘stirring up hatred’ didn’t realize that they were? Are they still technically charged with a crime, even if they didn’t not intend to hate?

            In any law or act of this sort, there needs to be a clear cut set of rules and actions that are defined as hate. There needs to be no loophole or contradiction between any of these definitions of hate because then the argument becomes invalid because of said contradictions. Overall, I personally become very confused when I try to pick sides to ethical arguments, such as this one, because I feel like there are different situations that should require different punishments (in this case for example). I think this is common with ethical arguments because many people have trouble figuring out what side they choose, because everyone has personal biases. Whether because of culture, personal knowledge, opinions ect.