In 2005, if the burning of the cross could be proved to be "intentional intimidation," local governments were allowed to impose penalties on members of KKK (Turley, Jonathan.Washingtonpost.com). However, since the government can easily state the history of symbols, regardless of behavior itself, it is pointless to decide which boundary to impose. In the above lawsuit on the theft courage law, the court also considered the ability of the government to modify the definition. In world democracy, the United States has its own fair share of hatred speech. There are many controversies about whether to regulate disliked words. When analyzing the concept of freedom of speech, we can not ignore what it does not happen in a vacuum. Various types of depreciation are generated from racial, religious, racial and gender stereotypes. Freedom of speech basically includes all other basic human rights. Therefore, as recognized by natural rights The framework of this debate - a difference between free and disliked speech - is disappointing. "Hate speech" is basically a pattern of speech or discourse. Whether speech hates or not depends on the speaker 's intention, and sometimes the influence on the audience. "Disliked speech" can be meaningfully juxtaposed with other phenomena in the family such as "political" or "controversial" speech. And the background. However, "freedom of speech" is not such a remark. I declare a statement such as the so-called "Hate Speech" exception in the first amendment, or "Statement of Freedom, This is a Hate Speech" or "When is the Speech Stopped and Hate Speech Started?" I have heard. However, the first amendment has no exception in hating the speech. The disliked idea (whatever it means) is protected by other ideas like the first fix. People can freely condemn Islam or Muslim, Jew, black, white, illegal alien, or indigenous people and can condemn capitalism, socialism, or Democratic Party or Republican Party

In this article I will explain some of the problems surrounding the word of hatred and its regulation. In the first two sections we will discuss the positions of Andrew Altman and Jonathan Rauch. In Part 3, I will introduce that Altman can speak against Rauff's opposition. Then I will discuss my argument that dislike speech should never be regulated under any circumstances, especially with respect to protecting someone's psychology, emotions or anxiety specified by Altman. Finally, I conclude that despite good faith moral belief that promotes regulation of disliked speech, you should not agree with Altman. "On March 26, 2024, you retweeted:" Do you want freedom of speech, freedom is what you get, it is not freedom of speech, it is a free world. "According to the new rules , This message is classified as hatred. You were warned to delete the message, but you could not comply. If you think there is an error, you can contact the nearest government welfare office. How can I survive for a month? Where can I get staple food if I am blocked by Amazon? I will be on the street, at the back seat of the police car or under the bridge. There is a shiny show full of trophies on the street, but direct A of his life is a favorite of his class. Who should be blamed? Murmur tweet? my parents? government? society? The power of history? Me? Everyone, everything, the whole universe? Or just a series of random events? Every effort by the government trying to control hate speech is declared unconstitutional. 25 years ago, 350 or more universities and universities used voice code dislikes. However, we believe that all courts claim that such disliked speech codes are illegal. These codes are inevitably ambiguous in that they allow for speech or forbidden content. Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute, there is the possibility of being punished if causing illegal acts, "real threat" that fears imminent harm within the scope of prohibiting personal safety and harassment . Speech codes can make new conservatists and anti - averse speech regulations successful, because such efforts are doomed to be unsuccessful or unrealistic. Caucasians will never accept such rules. They infer that proponents of regulation of hatred speech regulation must know this, so their goal may be symbolic, very, or in any case they may not say Hmm. For example, actively, the US Supreme Court consistently dismissed laws regulating speech, and determined that they are ambiguous and too broad. He also wrote that anti-aversion speech campaign lacks foresight and 'market stability' and it is completely impossible to sell it to the American people. Mr. Gates hated speech activists and asked ways to believe that campus rules are valid even if enacted. If the radicalist believes that the campus is at the boiling stage of racism, how will the campus administrator and the hearing officer make non-discriminatory hearings based on the code?

Imagine a person talking with one hand holding a tongue, it sounds uncomfortable. Imagine that now people have to do this every time they speak with their friends, family or boyfriend / girlfriend. Having their tongue will limit what they say and when they can tell it. Believe it or not, this is a topic from everyday life to the Supreme Court. There is no agreement on how people regulate or whether they should be regulated. This is a disagreeable word. Like most democrats in the world, the United States has a fair share of hatred speech. There are many controversies about whether to regulate disliked words. When analyzing the concept of freedom of speech, we can not ignore what it does not happen in a vacuum. Various types of depreciation are generated from racial, religious, racial and gender stereotypes. Freedom of speech basically includes all other basic human rights. Freedom of speech, stateing your favorite right without fear of being punished is one of America's most precious freedoms. This freedom is considered to be the most important by the founder as it is protected by the relevant constitutional provisions. The most basic argument against disliked speech codes is that they violate basic human rights and freedom of speech. Some people believe that this basic right should not be restricted unless it prevents serious harm to others. For example, in a movie theater it is legally prohibited, as it may cause serious damage. By contrast, the campus ban is "disgusting speech" is often uncomfortable and unpopular, mainly because it does not cause serious harm. The basic right to freedom of expression should not be limited to prevention of disliked speech. The hatred's speech is believed to be regulated as part of our human dignity efforts. For example, depicting religious leaders as terrorists in newspaper comics, leading to crime is not the same as starting a defamatory attack against the dignity of the group, it is outside the scope of the law. Through hatred speech, however, minority groups can be protected and weaken the public interest to be protected: the basic guarantee that all members will be integrated into society. Dupree, a former school teacher, is a law professor at the University of Georgia now and is studying the balance between American freedom of speech and the need for control and order in American children's education. The fundamental question is how much freedom of speech is needed for children in American schools.

Description of journal information: Law and philosophy are forums for announcing the results of law and philosophy, which is a common concern for both law and philosophical members. It is open to all methods in both areas and applies to all major legal traditions - customary law, civil law or socialist tradition. Editors of law and philosophy encourage the use of legal knowledge to publish essays on philosophical reflection of the law, as well as articles that provide legal analysis through philosophical methods and principles. Movement wall: 3 years (What is a moving wall?) "Mobile Wall" represents the period between the latest issue available in JSTOR and the latest journal. The moving wall is usually expressed in terms of age. In rare cases, since the issuer selected the "zero" mobile wall, the current problem will be made public on JSTOR as soon as it is issued. For example, if the current year is 2008 and the journal has a 5 year moving frame, you can get the 2002 article. Waldron pays particular attention to the harm that hate speech brings to the dignity of the targeted person. He carefully separated "dangerous dignity" from the feelings of harm that people may encounter in uncomfortable language. If aggressive, especially saying "Hello", you can sue in almost every speech. And Waldron agrees with those who say that coordinating aggressive remarks is a bad and infeasible idea. But he believes that harm to dignity is not just a crime. He considers this to be an "implicit guarantee" for every citizen. Although his beliefs and loyalty may be criticized and rejected by some of his compatriots, he still remains his opponent It will be seen in. People who are socially equivalent members Disliked words bring harm. While normalizing discrimination and permanent harm, normalizing discrimination and constant harm, hatred speech leads to indirect harm, persuading the listener to believe negative stereotypes, harmful We will let you participate in action. The way to extremism starts with setbacks, then includes a speech of hatred with others and finally see violence as necessary before committing violence or vandalism for the interests of radical groups. Some of humiliation occurring in social media is an hatred speech, so it is a disliked speech that makes natural reflections. Furthermore, the danger of humiliation of social media mimics the danger of disgusting remarks, even if they are not perfectly matched. As in Canada, in countries where the laws of hatred's speech are becoming stricter, dignity has long been considered the core of these laws. In the case of R v Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada comments on ridicule, hostility, and cruelty encouraged by the advertisement of hatred ... This has had a serious adverse effect on the individual's self esteem and the sense of acceptance. Due to this influence, members of the target group are taking a great deal of measures, such as avoiding actions that are exposed to members outside the group, adopting attitudes and postures designed to integrate with most groups You can take it.

I am living in the USA, we enjoy a lot of beautiful freedom and freedom. Most of these freedoms seem to be closely related to our lives, but most freedom comes from sacrifice and effort. Among all our rights, freedom of speech is one of our most valued things and may be one of the most controversial things. An annoying speech is one of the prices that we can buy to confirm that our presentation is free. But as the hatred's speech becomes more common, many people want to know that it is too much or the price we should pay. The most common thing we say in the era of freedom of speech is silence. We are trying to calm our speech. I hate speech I do not like. But dislike of disliked words is a nasty word - we hate words! We dislike the speech. Just as words of hatred dislikes freedom, words of hatred including disliked words also dislikes freedom. I love to talk, I speak! I love freedom, freedom is exercising! Then you will challenge any hatred. Do you really have such a bad question? The only bad question is the question we do not ask - we should not be afraid of the truth, so we should pursue the truth. In search of the truth, it makes you free. No matter how dark the question is, the light will be with you. If you have a problem, do not be afraid to ask it - no matter how bad it looks. If we are enthusiastic and courageous after asking for it, there will always be problems. First of all, the question of Professor Rosenbaum is as follows. Should the United States develop disliked speech to restrict freedom of speech? Rosenbaum says that the only reason why hatred speech is not censored and prosecuted in the United States is that speech does not cause actual harm and causes serious physical harm in comparison to hatred crime with attacks I think there is a possibility. However, Rosenbaum suggests that neurological evidence (none he has specifically cited) suggests that emotional pain may be as painful as physical pain Said. Freedom of speech means enabling people with fundamentally different views to talk. But freedom of speech does not mean refusing to point out that people we do not agree are wrong, sometimes wrong. The detoxification of hatred and racist speech is not suppression but makes more remarks. When an individual or organization raises hatred, the government should respond, not through censorship, but through strong, direct and explicit discussion on aggressive remarks, and must do so. Freedom of speech means that the government can not ban or punish speech. This does not mean that the government can not judge the speech. Because judgment is the essence of politics

In recent years, the United States is plagued by increasing abusive and violent behavior against colorful people, lesbians, homosexuals, and other historically persecuted groups. In the context of these intolerant expressions, there are colleges and university campuses, and sometimes prejudice has occurred since the mid - 1980s. The anger, indignation, and the demand for change are responses to these events - it can be understood for the lack of ethnic and social diversity of most campus students, teachers and administrators. In a liberal and campus disliked speech: In a philosophical exam, Andrew Altman proposed a speech regulation on a narrow and ultimately problematic campus. He will guide the reader in the context of the problem and pass through the regulations of the wider form of hatred words previously proposed which were designed to define his own limit as the narrowest and most thorough thinking I began his argument by doing. Among other few less-responsible people When thinking paradigms are considered, the concept of regulating disliked words becomes a problem for several new reasons. For example - you and I may not agree to adjust the value of speech on campus, but if rigid rules are implemented and implemented on campus, observe some reasonable reduction I agree with what I can expect. The type of speech currently prohibited. Therefore, unless banned speech is no longer heard on campus, the apparent prohibition of disliked speech seems to be effective. Regulation of speech of hatred within campus Many universities adopt policies to ban speech, respond to concerns of people with hatred, and these statements or behaviors are based on race, sex, race, religion or sexuality It will harm every group for orientation. . The university's ability to eliminate campus prejudice is not an ability to punish racists, but to equality and education efforts. Hatred's speech includes word expression, pictorial expression or symbolic expression of hatred for race, religion or ethnicity, homosexuals and women. The boundary of the first amendment is at the center of the legal argument about freedom of expression and disliked speech. Freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right, but the Supreme Court never thought that the Constitution would provide "absolute" rights to freedom of expression. Even if they are unpopular and dislike, individuals have the right to speak and in some cases have the right to state their opinions.

Freedom of speech has become a pillar of democratic integration when it limits disliked speech. Without freedom of speech, we will not challenge ideas, the government will not be restricted and citizens can not be free. John Stuart Miller once said, "There is no reason for humans to silence that person if all men lose one person's opinion and only one person has the opposite opinion. I will protect those who are silent. "(Roleff, 21). An excellent Guardian article by Monday Julia Carrie Wong is investigating the impact of the growing liberal / leftistic desire for "Hate speech". It is forbidden to spread what they call "disgusting ideas" with their platform. As Wong correctly pointed out, "Many Americans are increasingly fond of restrictions on European style dislikes." Therefore, it is worth considering how these "European regulations" are actually functioning and how they will work against anyone. There are two arguments to support freedom of speech. However, many people believe that freedom of speech should be restricted or limited in some cases. I am not talking about voluntary (courtesy) restrictions but speaking about involuntary restrictions. These limits include limitations on hatred, attack, confidentiality, utility, and authority. Some remarks may harm certain groups, especially the mainstream culture and those supported by the government. This aggressive remark may be told in good faith to reach the truth. It may not be the case. In either case, attacking this group is regarded as a bigger mistake than restricting freedom of speech. For example, a frank and open-cut comparison of sexual relations with Muhammad's 9-year-old girl and pedophile sexual relations is uncomfortable for many Muslims. Under the International Human Rights Act, it is clearly stipulated that expressions including aversive expressions can not be based solely on aggressive or insulting content. But the government has to restrict speech, because restrictions are the only way to prevent serious harm. This kind of speech can be understood as the form of the most serious "intolerance" or "hatred" that is claiming discriminatory hatred, aiming at violence and discrimination, and may instigate it. Direct threats limiting discriminatory violence may also be limited

The ban on the hatred's speech is unacceptable intolerance of disliked speech and it is definitely a problem, but no solution is found in the banning of disliked speech. Hatred's speech prohibits the right attempt to prohibit unpleasant and intolerant speech, but doing so will prohibit other statements and opinions that need to be shared, and these statements and opinions actually I can not bear it. The banning of dislikes is often used to block what is considered aggressive. Our society should not accept unpleasant remarks, but unpleasant remarks are very subjective and may vary from case to case. Not only that, we also protect ourselves from the government by our constitution. So, if the ban on hatred's speech is not the right way to deal with the hatred's speech, what is the right way? I think that words of hatred should be protected, but it is not accepted by society. If people are not afraid to go to jail to announce an unpleasant opinion, then another opinion is to have people discuss them. If you really dislike this perspective, our society, media, business, and school can take action accordingly. Social exclusion is certainly more effective than the general ban. (However, I think that there should be a code of conduct to prevent objective harm to other people on campus, and prohibition is prohibited because it is necessary to be prohibited. It is aggressive or sneaky and forbids speaking.) HG: Protected speech is about expression of opinion. Therefore, prohibiting in particular on campuses of the university, from my point of view, is to prohibit review or punishment for discomfort, danger, or other reasons, deserves silence. . Therefore, I think that it is necessary to maximize the protection of opinion at any university, but it is definitely a requirement of the first revision of public university. One sign of the US freedom of expression law is to forbid the government from censoring or punishing the speech of hatred. In public places hatred and hate speech attacks against homosexuals near the funeral home of military veterans are permitted and the cross on the lawn of an African American couple burns and the members of the US government's Ku Klux Klan The subversion was requested. All of these are protected by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court reaffirmed this view in June, Judge Samuel A. Arito Jr judged that most of the courts are "based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or other similar reasons Speech ". I hate that, but the courtroom right of freedom of speech is most proud of our protection of freedom by expressing "disgusting ideas".

If a person using social media determines that comments by others are inappropriate or inappropriate, they may report or "tag" the comment to the platform provider. In this survey, Wilhelm and Joeckel conducted online surveys distributed through political interest groups on the Facebook and German News Magazine websites. Participants read an online review of women and sexual minorities and indicated whether they mark them as inappropriate. Another group of participants rated responses after disliked comments. Some comments were made by men, but others were written by women. Participants also responded to questionnaires asking about their ethical and moral identities, their political affiliation, and their age and gender. In this survey, it is not confirmed that gender directly affects commentary on hatred, but the result shows that women are more morally concerned about fairness than men. Women also need to strengthen their efforts to keep others from hurting, thereby increasing the likelihood of hateful comments. Wilhelm and Joeckel further found that women's comments on the Internet are more restrictive than similar statements by men. "These findings support the idea that women place importance on fairness and avoid harming others," Wilhelm explained. "In the specific case of comments on women and sexual minorities, the hatred speech of female writers is regarded as a double deviation, and therefore more strictly sanctioned than the male hate speech." Joeckel warns that online discussions and platform provider hosts should be sensitive to the impact of gender on online discussions and the possibility of flagging these comments "Online moderators have to admit that users can judge women's euphemism in different ways to refute their opinion," Joeckel explains. For details see Claudia Wilhelm et al. , Gender ethics and demolition in online discussions: How does users respond to comments of disliked speech about experimental research on women and sexual minorities, sexual roles (2018). DOI: 10.1007 / s11199-018-0941-5 A woman who announces a dissatisfied speech in social media may be more rigorous than a man who makes the same comments. The same is true for reactions of disliked speech (antisense) that are unacceptable when proposed by women than men. This is based on research published by Claudia Wilhelm and Sven Joeckel of Erfurt University in Germany to Springer magazine "Sex Roles". If a person using social media determines that comments by others are inappropriate or inappropriate, they may report or "tag" the comment to the platform provider. In this survey, Wilhelm and Joeckel conducted online surveys distributed through political interest groups on the Facebook and German News Magazine websites. Kick half back. There is no doubt that women severely judge our own sex behavior more than men. Even though women seem to want (and enjoy) progress, it seems that many people prefer to go away from the concept of "feminist movement". Contradiction, and briefly, we would like men to like us. I do not think most women are feminists. Indeed, most women believe that they believe in gender equality and women's rights, but they regard themselves as feminists, support the "feminism of the new age", "all about small things It is not "it is prolonged." They do not understand how lucky it is to "pay attention to everything" because women in front are fighting what they normally do as normal rights. And you are right, Justin. America is more severe for women. But you do not allow your arbitrariness and quick judgment for women, and especially if the female's skin is brown, women bring more serious consequences for these public scandals than men. And your privilege is on your ability to ignore this problem as it does not personally affect you. This conversation far exceeds the surface bitterness. This is not only the performance of the Super Bowl, but it is much more serious than the subsequent decrease in sales of

According to new research, women who present speech which dislikes in social media may be more rigorous than men who make the same comments. The results of this study, published in the magazine Gender Role, also show that women 's response to hatred' s speech is not very good for men. Claudia Wilhelm, co-author of the University of Erfurt in Germany, said: "These findings support the views to avoid women's fairness and harm to others." It is considered to be a double deviation, and hence, it is strictly sanctioned than this hate speech by men, "Wilhelm added. In this study, the research team conducted an online survey including 457 participants (51% female) through political interest groups and the German news magazine website on Facebook. If a person using social media determines that comments by others are inappropriate or inappropriate, they may report or "tag" the comment to the platform provider. Participants read an online review of women and sexual minorities and indicated whether they mark them as inappropriate. Another group of participants rated responses after disliked comments. Some comments are made by men, others are written by women. Researchers did not find any signs that gender had a direct impact on aversion, but the results showed that women are more morally concerned about fairness than men. They also found that women are increasing the possibility of popping more energy and avoiding dislikes to avoid hurting other people. Researchers warn that online organizers and platform providers should be sensitive to the impact of gender on online discussions and the likelihood that these comments will be flagged I have friction. Does Neo Nazi's dislike message meet the community standard of social media sites? Indeed, most social media sites claim that they prohibit dislikes to speak in their terms of use. In fact, their implementation of these standards is questionable. Over the years many women and ethnic minorities have shared racist and gender discriminatory posts, and they can stay in social media even after they report. Now is the time to restrict community standards. What does this mean? This means Americans have an instinct to force community standards even if speech breaks. Aggressive speech is always broken. As the Germans used this instinct for the self-defense of the community, we take the Nazi party seriously, respectfully to the Nazis, deny other things Americans believe are freedom of speech and infringement of freedom I will. A woman who announces a dissatisfied speech in social media may be more rigorous than a man who makes the same comments. The same is true for reactions of disliked speech (antisense) that are unacceptable when proposed by women than men. This is based on research published by Claudia Wilhelm and Sven Joeckel of Erfurt University in Germany to Springer magazine "Sex Roles". If a person using social media determines that comments by others are inappropriate or inappropriate, they may report or "tag" the comment to the platform provider. In this survey, Wilhelm and Joeckel conducted online surveys distributed through political interest groups on the Facebook and German News Magazine websites. In Myanmar, we spread social media and hatred of speech and violence against Muslim Rohingya. According to the War and Peace Reporting Institute, the majority of disgusting speech is done on Facebook, not social media, especially print media. These positions seem to be latent and organized and evolve into more targeted militarism over time. Since late August 2017, more than 600,000 Rohingya left Myanmar, escaping from state-driven violence.

Throughout history, the US Constitution has examined the issue of freedom of speech. In the first amendment, "Congress enacts any law, respects religious beliefs, prohibits free speech, deprives freedom of speech or press, or deprives the right of peaceful gatherings, And I will not petition the government to rectify indignation. " People are proudly adapting to one of the core values ​​of each citizen, but some Americans find themselves bound by the restrictions on the freedom of speech to express hatred speech. An excellent Guardian article by Monday Julia Carrie Wong is investigating the impact of the growing liberal / leftistic desire for "Hate speech". It is forbidden to spread what they call "disgusting ideas" with their platform. As Wong correctly pointed out, "Many Americans are increasingly fond of restrictions on European style dislikes." Therefore, it is worth considering how these "European regulations" are actually functioning and how they will work against anyone. There are two arguments to support freedom of speech. However, many people believe that freedom of speech should be restricted or limited in some cases. I am not talking about voluntary (courtesy) restrictions but speaking about involuntary restrictions. These limits include limitations on hatred, attack, confidentiality, utility, and authority. Some remarks may harm certain groups, especially the mainstream culture and those supported by the government. This aggressive remark may be told in good faith to reach the truth. It may not be the case. In either case, attacking this group is regarded as a bigger mistake than restricting freedom of speech. For example, a frank and open-cut comparison of sexual relations with Muhammad's 9-year-old girl and pedophile sexual relations is uncomfortable for many Muslims. In this case, the call to restrict dislikes should not be required to be a comprehensive decrease in freedom of speech, but rather as a requirement for uniformity of grammar. There is only one clear government intervention: the threat of violence, harassment, etc. are the way the group can use their remarks to suppress other group's remarks. If these behaviors are related to existing power structures, they are likely to result in different costs of different kinds of speech, as it is often the case. For example, the impact on women and color people's career is publicly described as "unstable". Even though it is easy to start from the workplace, the threat is completely different from Caucasian.

On 6th October 1998, I was tempted by a cold fateful night from the bar. When he was tied to the fence, his skull was crushed by the pistol butt and died at a temperature near the freezing point. About 18 hours later he was found by a passerby and was taken to a hospital where he was in a coma for several days until he slowly slipped. In his funeral, the nutritionist said at the slogan: "I hate God," and "Beat should die." Matthew Shepard is one of the thousands of victims of violent forms known as hatred crimes. "As a society we know that our position for violence due to our hatred is absolutely necessary.The crime of hatred weakens the structure of our country.It is not only attack on individual but also against the whole community On the other hand, Page wrote a different number On the other hand, for white superiorists such as 14 Page, it has a special meaning: It was in 1984 that Denver Jewish talk radio host Alanberg It dates back to a man named David Ryan, who led the terrorist organization called the order of assassination.In prison, Ryan drafted a 14-character slogan designed to motivate his fellow racist revolutionaries I did: "We must ensure the existence of our people and the future of white children." We agree. Even those who support speech freedom are full of emotional, logistical, and legal twists and turns. Every righteous man must oppose the violence and attacks of hatred that our country seems to be growing. But on the Internet, we must recognize that the strategies currently used to silence the new Nazis are immediately used for other people, including those we agree with . People on the left side explain the movements of black living bodies as a dislike group. In the civil rights era when constituting the foundation for defending the freedom of speech today, the voice of the National People's Promotion Association of Japan was attacked. In the past 15 years, disliked speech and crime of hatred are increasing. In particular, as laws on hatred crimes increase, the number of law enforcement agencies increases at all levels, so hatred crime is getting more attention. The Internet also makes it easier for hate groups to organize and disseminate their hate messages. Because of these changes over the past 15 years, the speech of hatred and its legal and constitutional influences are discussed. Occasionally claiming that the hatred speech that is often charged with hatred of damaging someone or property but does not cause such damage is protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression It will be. Roberts' principal judge says: "We can not respond to pain by punishing lecturers.

The motivation for prejudice against individuals or groups based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or other characteristics is a disagreeable crime. These crimes can be directed at people themselves or their property. When someone commits a crime of hatred, their goal is not just one person, but a group of people. That is why there are additional penalties for crimes of hatred. Punishment for hate crime is very easy given that the abnormality of Hate crime is directed to the whole group. I hate crime. What is Hate Crime? A. Hate Crime Definition B. Hate Crime Calculation 1. White Power 2. Black Power II. Examples of hat offenses A. Penalties for hate crimes Ⅲ. Reason for crime of hatred Although crime of hatred existed in the past, they certainly were more violent in the past. Hatred crime is certainly still a problem in today's society, but it has not been dealt intensely as it used to be. There are also violent acts. I. Introduction - What is hatred crime? Hatred crime is a person who intentionally chooses a victim because of race, skin color, religion, nationality, race, gender, or sexual orientation. People who commit crimes of hatred can come from any career or from all races. The term hatred crime is designed to distinguish crimes caused by prejudice caused by factors such as greed, anger, politics. The Hate Crime Act is a law aimed at restraining violence based on prejudice. The Hate Crime law is different from the law against Hate speech. The Hate Crime law strengthens the penalties related to the acts that other laws have already become criminal, and the hate speech law makes a kind of speech a crime. Hatred's speech method exists in many countries. In the United States, both the Supreme Court and the lower courts, in particular in the case of "battle" and other violent statements, support the law of hatred crime, but some laws have the right of first amendment Contradictory can be regulated by the threat of injury or death What is the aversion to crime law? Because of the victim's race, religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or physical disability, the National Hate Crime Act imposes severe fines on the victims. Therefore, if a criminal attacks someone because that person is Jewish, the crime may be an aversive crime. How does the Hate Crime Law work? National hate crimes are often "strengthened and enforced." In other words, penalties for crime will increase if victims and targets are deliberately chosen for violence due to personal characteristics. What is the new Federal Hate Crime Law - Matthew Shepherd and James Bird, "Hate Crime Prevention Act" - What will you do? This measure allows the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute hatred crimes and to investigate and prosecute hat offenses in cases where the local people do not want to sue or fail to sue lawsuits in limited circumstances . Why is there an aversive crime law?

Gentleman lady, my name is BLANK, I am here because I am an adventurer. Have you heard that "Do you want to do the same way even if you jump over a bridge?" My answer is "Yes", I was anxious to jump off the free fall from the bridge. This decision is a decision to change my life. It was a hot and humid day, and my friends and I took a bicycle for hours to bury the time. After a while, we arrived at a pedestrian bridge hanging in the water. We all parked in front of it. Suddenly my best friend said "I will dare to jump off the bridge", and do not say anything, but I have a big fear of height. I declare a statement such as the so-called "Hate Speech" exception in the first amendment, or "Statement of Freedom, This is a Hate Speech" or "When is the Speech Stopped and Hate Speech Started?" I have heard. However, the first amendment has no exception in hating the speech. The disliked idea (whatever it means) is protected by other ideas like the first fix. People can freely condemn Islam or Muslim, Jew, black, white, illegal alien, or indigenous people and can condemn capitalism, socialism, or Democratic Party or Republican Party Defending standard freedom of speech in Hate speech is simply to ask for "more speech" to fight it. More speech may be useful in recent "unification rights" meetings in Charlottesville where more American citizens condemn all Nazis' slogans, symbolism and embarrassment rather than endorse them. We need to say hundreds of Caucasian voter votes, the firearms they exercise, and the terrorist acts committed by one of them, but we may hesitate to speak with them in the future not. Racial incitement, abusive speech, blatant hatred's speech must be absolutely regarded as legally protected speech. If the rights of people expressing such statements are infringed by the state authorities, they must obtain the necessary remarks to explore legal instruments. Correct measures will unify precedents and will give greater freedom to limit the overall remark to the government.

Introduction: I know that most people in the class have seen custom cars on the street. However, how many people really know how to create a custom car / track. I do not think you are too much. This requires a lot of patience and time. This will not happen during the night. Custom cars cost a lot of money. I forgot to mention important things, but we need to carefully consider it and consider what the vehicle will do. I declare a statement such as the so-called "Hate Speech" exception in the first amendment, or "Statement of Freedom, This is a Hate Speech" or "When is the Speech Stopped and Hate Speech Started?" I have heard. However, the first amendment has no exception in hating the speech. The disliked idea (whatever it means) is protected by other ideas like the first fix. People can freely condemn Islam or Muslim, Jew, black, white, illegal alien, or indigenous people and can condemn capitalism, socialism, or Democratic Party or Republican Party Defending standard freedom of speech in Hate speech is simply to ask for "more speech" to fight it. More speech may be useful in recent "unification rights" meetings in Charlottesville where more American citizens condemn all Nazis' slogans, symbolism and embarrassment rather than endorse them. We need to say hundreds of Caucasian voter votes, the firearms they exercise, and the terrorist acts committed by one of them, but we may hesitate to speak with them in the future not. Racial incitement, abusive speech, blatant hatred's speech must be absolutely regarded as legally protected speech. If the rights of people expressing such statements are infringed by the state authorities, they must obtain the necessary remarks to explore legal instruments. Correct measures will unify precedents and will give greater freedom to limit the overall remark to the government. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the US Constitution and many state constitutions and the first revision of state and federal law. Freedom of speech is not absolute, the US Supreme Court acknowledges several statements that are excluded from freedom and the government can take reasonable hours, places or restrictions on speech I admitted. In most cases it is acceptable to criticize the government and to argue that people may find unpleasant opinions contrary to offensive or public policy. There are exceptions to these general protections, such as the testing of obscene articles by Miller, child pornography, temptation to imminent action, regulation of commercial speech such as advertisements.

The influence of racial hatred "I hate Lima beans.Mother, please do not let me eat them, they are too bad!" The children always say this. I do not like it, it easily protrudes from my tongue, but I do not feel the power it brings. Whatever the background you grow, you learn what you hate when you are young. From the children of Klansmen to the intercity fathers, poor children, even to the suburbs that we believe to be very cleanly protecting. If the children are in a very weak position and Mama told you to hate these robbers, they will ruin our society, or he will disappoint us and make money to us Do not give us imitate by listening to the hatred of painting. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued an "early warning" to the United States on the emergence of racists and hatred groups. "We are shocked by the racist demographics, Caucasianists, Neonatis and KKK's open racist slogan, tribute and tribute, encouraging racial discrimination and hatred and seeking the Federal Reserve "" The United States, as well as senior politicians and civil servants reject and condemn racist speech and crime clearly and unconditionally in Charlottesville and throughout the country " The most common form of racial discrimination in education is student harassment. The Civil Rights Bureau reported "Personal attacks with ethnic motivation, racial nicknames written on school walls, and incidents organizing hatred for students". The results of offenders after the incident may lead to investigation by the Civil Rights Bureau. If your child is a victim of racial discrimination at school, please contact the Civil Rights Bureau and file a complaint. Your complaint will be investigated and the school will be prohibited from federal funded racial harassment at school. If the survey prove that the school is taking discriminatory behavior, the civil rights office will require the school to adopt anti-harassment policies that must be fully implemented. Currently there are differences in the laws that manage different types of hatred crimes. Perpetrators of racially or religiously motivated hat offenses may be accused of certain crimes such as racial or religious serious harassment or strikes. However, perpetrators of homosexual hate crimes have been criticized for committing existing crimes such as attacks, and they are considering the motivation for homosexuality in the process of judgment. Articles 318 and 319 of the Penal Code stipulate that the temptation to hatred is a criminal act, "appeal, support, encourage or claim assassination of members based on color, race, religion" It has said. , Ethnic or sexually oriented group "

No other government in the world gives freedom to people like the United States. In the past 60 years, the US court developed a series of legal principles to protect freedom of expression in all its forms. The first amendment is to respect the freedom of religion. It also prevents the government from "freedom of speech and press freedom, or peaceful rallies of people and depriving the government of the right to correct complaints". In American early history, the protection of freedom was very important for Americans. First of all, it is important to understand freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is expressing human thoughts and opinions without fear of government retaliation or censorship. However, freedom of speech is restricted because it is not considered "absolute" freedom. One exception is "strike text". "Blood and the Earth" - notoriously Nazi Carol from the Second World War. That means your blood vessels and the blood of the land you grew up raising you better than anyone else. By the way, the term "blood and soil" is regarded as a legitimate hate speech by anti-crime alliance. So, as mentioned above, please refer to the word of battle, also known as disliked words. Freedom of speech has been subject to discussion for many years. Freedom of speech is always one of the most important rights in any constitution, as democracy is established in many countries to provide safety and rights. Freedom of speech constitutes the human rights that everyone should have and the human rights that must be respected. As individuals, we have the right to express, write, publish or disseminate our opinion, and these expressions must be respected if not shared. - The first amendment in the US gives citizens five great freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of the rights. If people do not have the freedom of speech, there is no way to express themselves and there is no way to show personality during faith. This amendment became a problem in the lawsuit of the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community District Supreme Court in December 1969.

Whether it should limit synonyms of freedom of speech, and whether there is a lack of freedom given to individuals. People's freedom is the greatest achievement in the Americas, but checks and balances between free lines are not reliable. An obscene statement was defined beyond the scope of the first amendment. The perplexity and embarrassment of public figures must be proved in vain; ignoring the truth recklessly. If information deceives the reader, the government can prohibit commercial speech from being illegal. The freedom of speech and the theory behind it are also affected. According to the New York Times article, most Democratic and Republican students say that freedom of speech should be limited as conscious aggressive words and groups. The theory is that everyone has equal voice, and those who share minor negative / hate speech (cards, white superiorists) claim that this is their right to make possible comments . Many millenniums clearly oppose, as we recognize that "freedom of speech" is condemned in some cases of "liberty of hatred". Whether it should limit synonyms of freedom of speech, and whether there is a lack of freedom given to individuals. People's freedom is the greatest achievement in the Americas, but checks and balances between free lines are not reliable. An obscene statement was defined beyond the scope of the first amendment. The perplexity and embarrassment of public figures must be proved in vain; ignoring the truth recklessly. - ... There is no limit to the users of these services. Many journalists were imprisoned. In addition, the government grabbed many news coverage, and many newspapers were closed. For example, Al - Watan (newspaper) was interrupted by security police because it published articles on government corruption. International journalists are also restricted. It is similar to the use of the Internet It is a simple rhetorical move to appeal that freedom of speech was violated. This is a very powerful move, especially in the United States. However, not all speech restrictions infringe freedom of speech. In fact, most of the restrictions of speech in everyday life do not infringe the freedom of speech. When we talk about freedom of speech, especially in the US, we mainly talk about legal rights. This is what we mean when we decide the freedom of speech through protection of the first amendment. Just like any other right, freedom of speech is important as it protects and promotes certain values. Freedom of speech contains the value of open discussion

In the summer of 1998, James Bird Jr. was tied behind the pickup truck and was dragged 2 miles along the dirt road by a group of people biased towards his race. Four months later, two adoles beat Matthew Shepard with a pistol and he was gay, so he bound him to the fence near the frozen weather. Two attacks caused anger across the country, causing more severe punishment for hate crimes. Currently, 40 states and the District of Columbia adopt an aversive crime law. Looking around, people started against the hatred, against misogyny, against all the mistakes and non-Americans they knew. We are a country based on freedom and equality. The struggle for true equality may not really end, but that does not mean we should not fight at all. Resist Earlier this week, the German government also fought against the online hate speech. They proposed a new law that imposes a fine of up to 50 million euros on social media companies that can not eliminate or deter hatred words within 24 hours of complaints. The proposed law affects not only companies, but also individuals. Social media companies are appointed as "responsible contacts". If the user's complaint is not handled within the deadline, he / she may be liable to a fine of up to EUR 5 million. Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton asked the millennial generation not to fight against hatred, but also to work together to fight for the structure of the country for future generations. When Secretary Clinton talked us as a partner rather than annoying, she said. "Young people will always sit on the table and make decisions." In recent memories, the millennium has not been devalued. We are seriously considered as activists, policy makers, policy experts, community leaders It was the latest expression of this article that I got a big impression. We need to be vigilant about all communities in order to reveal and oppose hatred ideas and actions, but we also need to balance the costs of the people we are helping with. IML hit by an article of hatred was released yesterday, Stephen apologized and he accepted an apology. Whenever a story discovered that ugly mind, he kept saying that he would come and experience the pain.

California state university San Bernardino California State University reports that Monday announced Monday that the hate crime rate in the top ten cities across the country increased by 12% last year, the highest for more than 10 years It reached. The total number of hat offenses in the top 10 cities in the US has increased sharply in 2017 for four consecutive years. California State University hate and extremism center found that police cases in cities such as Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles increased by 12.5% ​​last year. Brian Levine, coauthor of the report, said this growth was due to greater "civilization" of state politics and quoted a travel ban to the Muslim countries in the cards. BBQ Becky, Permit Patty, and why the Internet humilates black people California State University's San Bernardino Canada Hate Experience Center reported in 2018 that the hate crime rate reported by the police in the top ten cities of the United States increased by 12.5% ​​in 2017 and continued for 4 consecutive years It is continuous for the year. It was always the best peak. According to the survey, anti-black crime was the most common crime case in the top ten cities in the country in 2017. Debra Davis was standing in the kitchen of the Creole family in Michigan where she lived for 15 years. When her family's car was destroyed in their vestibule, she used this moment to teach ethnic intolerance to her grandchild today. "They have the opportunity to see what they are seeing from a distance," Davis said. According to the new data, "The total number of total hatred crimes has reached the highest level in the last 10 years in the past 10 years." Between hunger crime increase and the ongoing # LivingWhileBlack event and other events I believe there is a direct link. Reported on crime and speech and racist policies of president Donald J. Trump. In the column posted in the St. Louis Post survey, researchers also noted that Russia's fraudulent attempts to raise "racial disharmony" during the 2016 presidential election and to suppress black voting I mentioned the influence of Russian advertisement. Possible factors of growing hatred. Crime They believe that there is a need for further investigation, but there seems to be a correlation between the increase in targeted social media advertisements and the nearly simultaneous increase in aversive crimes. "

Social media is "social interactive media that uses highly accessible and scalable communication technology, social media converts communications into interactive conversation using web-based and mobile technologies." The concept of freedom of expression is "right to express information, ideas, opinions." Social media has spread rapidly, problems have expanded, and exaggerated over conventional media. How can we check how this technology will benefit society without creating a harmful situation for us? Athletes highlight using social media ... more content Players often use links to websites such as Facebook and Twitter. This "real exchange" with fans directly leads to a "cumulative impact" effect, resulting in a profile that is bigger than life, which promotes products represented by players and players. This kind of communication has a positive and negative effect on players and their sponsor's career. "Even though the actual meaning behind this is out of the background, this is all a mistaken tweet, which will hurt the image of players, organizations and sponsors." Pittsburgh Steelers' American football running backwards to Rashard Mendenhall recently landed on Twitter and expressed his position on the death of Osama Bin Ladin, who was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Mendenhall wrote as follows: "What kind of people celebrate death? It is surprising that people hate people who have never heard before. · Osama bin Laden's A nearly sympathetic attitude has brought about that Lashad Mendenhall failed to support his agreement with the champion's sports brand.The impact of the unedited comment by the athlete depends on the need to restrict social media It shows sex. College students in the United States are recently limited by social media sites. Boise State prohibits players from using social media during the season. of Gab was founded in August 2016 with the mission of "Freedom of people and freedom of speech as a top priority". This philosophy is not extreme. Until a few years ago, major social media companies had freedom of speech as the basic principle. Twitter called itself "Liberal liberalist". The New York Times explained in 2013 that "Twitter has built up a sensible reputation to protect the freedom of speech and even unpopular speech." There was no rule for "hatred" until April 2015. However, in the past few years, most major social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Medium, Snapchat, Instagram, and Google social media applications YouTube and Google+ regulate "hate speech" Is adopted. People believe that these regulations are controversial about hot issues such as immigration and crime, but are used to examine opinions that are respectful. First, freedom of speech is a fundamental right for viewers who use social media platforms and media tools. Such speech also contributes to the development of the country. For example, freedom of speech plays an important role in the market of ideas. That is the diversity of ideas and ideas. In addition, freedom of speech can increase self-esteem of any individual in society by expressing opinions, ideas and motivating them to protect them. But how does the media respect this right? Since the media changed significantly from the past, the freedom of freedom of speech policy has also changed. In traditional media, freedom of speech is respected. But as time went on, this freedom was betrayed by the existence of commercialization. In addition, due to political influences, many television stations or radio channels have reduced freedom of speech to maintain political support. For example, a channel can control what the viewer is watching and from what angle.

In 1150, the church Fantoft Stave made of narrow wood was built in Sogn's small village Fortun. It moved to "Fantoft in 1883 ..." (www.bergen-guide.com) because it was likely to be demolished with other Norwegian churches. But ... "In 1992 the Fantoft church was damaged by a fire and took six years to build again" (www.fantoftstavkirke.com). Today, it is still standing where Fantoft was first burned. The person responsible for burning the church of Fantot Stave is a Norwegian musician named Varg Vikernes. In 1996, after a series of church attacks, Congress passed the "prevention of addiction church law" regulating defamation, destruction, or destruction of religious property. The law also prohibits "intentional obstruction by force or intimidation of the use of power, those who enjoy or are willing to do freedom to exercise religious beliefs". The vast majority of hate crimes in the United States are indicted in state courts. Currently, 45 provinces and the books of the District of Columbia have some form of hatred crime. Many states only recognize that race, skin color, religion, country of origin are factors of hatred crime. Pennsylvania is one of them Hatred crime is a traditional crime such as homicide, arson, vandalism, and there is further bias. In order to gather statistical data, the FBI may refer to a hate crime as a person or property perpetrator who is motivated in whole or in part by prejudice against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, race, gender, Criminal offenses against crime crime against war crimes ". It is not a crime per se - the FBI is careful to protect the freedom of speech and other civil liberties. Since so-called "reporters" print classical nonsense, "possible" has some concepts worthy of being permanent - and what do you guess? In the hands of the hero who smokes - We continue to instigate those flames until you are crucified by another person of color or faith According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about 30% of the total hate crime in 1996 was a crime against property. They include robbery, destruction, destruction, theft, arson. Approximately 70% involve an attack on people. This is a simple attack (no weapon) against serious attacks, rape, and murder. There are two levels of damage to this type of attack. One is a physical self and the other is your identity (http://www.stopthehate.org). Educational guessing about hate crime in society is difficult, as each state defines and reports these crimes in different ways. The Hate Crime Statistics Act was promulgated in 1990, but the federal law enforcement authorities did not start collecting national statistics until the following year. Another obstacle to accurately calculating fraudulent crime is that many victims are afraid to report attacks. Another reason is that it is difficult to determine biased motives. essay.com/Hate Crime - This article explains what disliked crime is, how often they are occurring, and what we can do to prevent them. Hate Crime - This article is about what hate crimes are, how often they occur, and what we can do to prevent them.

Freedom of speech, I have an idea! Everyone can speak freely about problems and ideas. Of course, some people will be better than others, but the result will put together everyone's best ideas. Everyone except you. We decide that the meaning of this country is not that important even if you say anything. We encourage you to leave all your thoughts to yourself. By making me angry, I mean to make someone unhappy. In general, no one really likes what you are saying. Therefore, you and you were decided to be just silent. There are two arguments to support freedom of speech. However, many people believe that freedom of speech should be restricted or limited in some cases. I am not talking about spontaneous (courtesy) restrictions, but I am speaking about involuntary restrictions. These limits include limitations on hatred, attack, confidentiality, utility, and authority. Some remarks may harm certain groups, especially the mainstream culture and those supported by the government. This aggressive remark may be told in good faith to reach the truth. It may not be the case. In either case, attacking this group is regarded as a bigger mistake than restricting freedom of speech. For example, a frank and open-cut comparison of sexual relations with Muhammad's 9-year-old girl and pedophile sexual relations is uncomfortable for many Muslims. Freedom of speech is one of the symbols of a democratic society. It should be limited to extreme and persuasive circumstances. It is the censorship and the decline of open discussion to criminalize aggressive and aggressive views. This is also counterproductive. It makes it possible for people martyrs to have a delusional view and to move from real solutions that hate speech: education and rational discussion. The disliked speech should not be a conviction, but a protest and an objection. Hate speech is a general expression of discrimination against vulnerable groups (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc), and not being a criminal act is counterproductive. A society exempt from discriminatory remarks is a society that tolerates discrimination and suffers violence. Since the hatred's speech is a precursor to violence, the rhetoric of the hatred anti-abortion of the United States for decades has brought assassinations of providers. After careful consideration of the question "Whether to restrict freedom of speech", I think it should be restrictive and effective. I think the limit is correct, but I think that the limit is wrong. Freedom of speech should be expressed as much as possible, but freedom of speech may infringe the rights of others. The best way to solve this problem is to do the work that the court did to adapt to excessive freedom. In order to compensate for the freedom of dissolution, people's rights are adjusted and adjusted without being excluded. First freedom of freedom is the most important, so it's first and foremost. The founder of the Constitution admitted changes. This is not to protect the majority but to protect a few people. Speaking wisely, restricting freedom of speech does not slow freedom, but makes speech clearer

Introduction: It is attractive (and easy) to list "10 things I dislike about 10 things about you". I think that this part can be said to be an ordinary entertainment in the movie recently released by young people's exploitation movies. I am brave. This is the same as it pledges respect for sexual acts, speech, drugs, alcoholism, fraud, authority. The movie is about to be in the 1990s comparable to the Shakespeare - Meat - Breakfast club. It certainly may start a career with its talented, often flattering young actor, but it does not work with family scores. Parents familiar with high school learning done on the screen will drive out 10 things that I hate you from a must-see list of teenagers. They look exactly the same, but there are subtle differences between Taming and the ten things I dislike. For example, instead of marrying 10 matters and things that hate you, they risk dating, because they are too young. Another difference is that Petruchi and Patrick "accustomed" Catherine in a different way. In order to "crush", Petruchio hungry, robbed sleep, and occasionally insulted Kate. Meanwhile, Patrick fell in love with her and always tried to turn good on her. Either method works well, but the method of Petr Ki is not accepted in today's society. Because women have the same rights as men. There is no big difference between the two stories, but there are some necessary differences to accommodate the period.

EFF prevents you from using the Internet as a platform for free expression through legal, technical and active activists. The Internet has greatly improved access to information in myriad ways, allowing anyone to share ideas and connect with the world. However, speech and permission are done in electronic frontier, but they are sometimes threatened. Removing the restrictions inherent in traditional printing or broadcasting media created and constrained by enterprise gatekeepers, the rhetoric is rapidly growing online. A social networking site allows a dozen friends to grow into a large community beyond the borders. At the same time, the community reporter uses Weibo and live video to show the world a story that has never been heard before. Websites like Wikipedia and Internet Archives open an open source model for sharing and storing information On the other hand, speech is also being threatened online. Code authors and developers may be subject to criminal penalties for implementing innovative digital modifications, modifications, and explorations. Likewise, dissidents and activists, especially those who may be unpopular in the places they live, are also facing the adverse effect of government monitoring programs that limit their freedom of expression . Journalists and researchers may also be hindered by government agencies that restrict public access to certain information. Even technical skills can be miraculous if users are deprived of legal protection for their own creativity. Without proper legal protection of users and innovators, governments and businesses can easily compromise your rights. Learn more at below and consider supporting our work. "The transparency of political advertisements like television and radio is required and it does not restrict freedom of speech of someone.In order to protect law enforcement and renewal policy, democracy and election process According to Mr. Ravel, the Republican commissioner is trying to block the enforcement of existing laws and to strengthen other laws even with the issue of crackdown on foreign powers. After the publicity of Facebook, Democratic senators are FEC In the letter, legislators informed FEC that Russia will avoid disclosing its expenditure and enhance best practices on social media platforms to prevent illegal overseas campaign spending Campaign, third party, and overseas asked to create a proposal to eliminate loopholes in the campaign disclosure method that makes it possible Adjust the coordination between the participants, to better adjust the broadcasting rules and digital political advertising rules In 2015 and 2016, Facebook released the latest version of free social networking rules that clarified what is allowed. "Hate speech" does not include satire on humorous topics, humor, social commentary. If you want to pay attention to the problem, you can quote a statement classified as a disliked speech. It is top notch. According to this survey, there were 15,727 and 12,525 groups opposed to refugees compared to the group supporting refugees (39 vs 22) as of 2016. This was confirmed by a survey by the Social Integration Institute who surveyed 18 Facebook groups. In this survey, the group that is targeting refugees insists that there is no restriction on the use of hate speech, and the explanation of refugees is usually "terrorist", "junk", and so on.

Review limits the freedom of speech review to control communication among people. This includes restrictions on what you see and hear. In most cases, the government is considering. However, religious and political leaders and special interest groups are also trying to control the flow of information. The censorship system violates the rights of individuals, hides useful information, and restricts freedom of expression. The four main kinds of reviews are ethics, military, politics, and religion. The most common type is a moral censorship system that limits obscenity. First of all, it is important to understand freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is expressing human thoughts and opinions without fear of government retaliation or censorship. However, freedom of speech is restricted because it is not considered "absolute" freedom. One exception is "strike text". "Blood and the Earth" - notoriously Nazi Carol from the Second World War. That means your blood vessels and the blood of the land you grew up raising you better than anyone else. By the way, the term "blood and soil" is regarded as a legitimate hate speech by anti-crime alliance. So, as mentioned above, please refer to the word of battle, also known as disliked words. Review limits the freedom of speech review to control communication among people. This includes restrictions on what you see and hear. In most cases, the government is considering. However, religious and political leaders and special interest groups are also trying to control the flow of information. The censorship system violates the rights of individuals, hides useful information, and restricts freedom of expression. The four main kinds of reviews are ethics, military, politics, and religion. - Freedom of speech in cyberspace Since the masses landed on the Internet, a lot of information became available. More and more countries have entered the information age since the 1990s. Because some countries lack freedom of expression, review systems play an important role in suppressing information. Many countries view massive amounts of information as threats. They encounter a malicious person, so trying to lower availability. Freedom of speech is freedom to talk freely without review or restriction. The situation varies from country to state, but freedom of expression establishes formal approval of most domestic laws. The enlightenment of Europe is the reason for freedom of speech. In 1689, the British 'Bill of Rights' acknowledged 'freedom of speech in Congress.' In 1789, the French Revolution announced human rights and citizenship. Freedom of speech is declared clearly undeniable right. After years, issues and limitations continue after freedom of speech. These challenges and limitations include attacks, excitement, and lawless, impending speech, impending behavior of child pornography. Since freedom of expression increases freedom of speech, such assertions may reveal any behavior or violent behavior or prejudice against a single person or group. Such statements are forbidden and are classified as deviant or criminal.

A detailed analysis of the attitude of Oliver Wendel Holmes and freedom of speech to the first corrected speech reveals a constantly changing conclusion. "Congress shall enact any law, respect the religious beliefs, prohibit the use of free religion, or deprive freedom of speech or freedom of speech, but to protect protected speech against another Some people regard it as. This is the end of the talk of Charles Schenck's freedom of speech, but this is not the end of Oliver Wendell Holmes's freedom of speech. How can a person who makes the most useless claim about freedom of speech in history become a hero of freedom of speech? You need to wait for the answer to be found in the next episode. Finally, I am grateful for the participation of the participants, voice actors, producers, and audio engineers. Guest's Nat Brandt and Michael Kazin, voice actor John Talifer, judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, President Woodrow Wilson, Charles Schenck of Justin Jefferies, Schenck attorney at Mark Oblinger, producer Kate Nutting Adam Lockwood Music, Music Design, Edit And mixing, and assistant of Kelly Kramarik. A detailed analysis of the attitude of Oliver Wendel Holmes and freedom of speech to the first corrected speech reveals a constantly changing conclusion. - Learning being a suitable writer for someone is as easy as paper and pen, but for others it's proved to be an annoying and difficult process to write. New students facing the first paper wish to know what to first arrange, but this may be a challenge. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. As the Secretary of Justice said, "The most rigid protection of freedom of speech does not protect us from shrugging people and causing panic in the theater." Viewpoint: When you create "clear and realistic" things your speech is dangerous to others and your speech is not protected. John Shuford, the founder of the Hate Research Policy Research Center at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, said that it has never been easier to draw a line than ever before. He said: "We sometimes have to accept unpleasant speakers and, sometimes, unpleasant premises, that is to say harmful and inflammatory ones." They are too far, they violated the law

Disliked crimes are more frequent than people are aware of. The two dislikable group of websites I test are immigrationbuzz.com and grassrootsgrannys.com. Immigrationbuzz is a website that tries to recruit and inform people about the harm caused to illegal immigrants to the economy. Grassrootsgrannys is a website that supports nationwide talk show radio and uses its opinions and religious beliefs online. At any Web site there are various ways to turn people into careers. The history of the Immigration Bureau is a profit organization that is to decide to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the United States. Guandolo designed this site in cooperation with ACT for America, and the Southern Poverty Law Center classified anti - Islamic exacerbating groups. Recently appointed national security advisor Michael Flynn is a member of its board of directors. The group proactively advertises the site. In a speech at the ACT National Conference in September 2015, Brigitte Gabriel, the president and founder of the group, boasted that the site won subscribers to 11 government agencies. "We have expanded our network to nationwide to bypass our government," she said. "We can do our work to train our first counterpart: even if they should, they are not trained by the government." Two groups from organized local sports will participate in the ACT 2018 National Convention in September. Jessica Vaughan and Chris Chmielenski from Immigration Hidden Immigration Research Center of NumbersUSA, another local organization that is part of the John Tanton network, are planning to give lectures in groups at the conference. Gabriel appeared in the video series produced by NumbersUSA in 2007 and called for "reviewing those who are running for Muslims." Another speaker at this year's meeting is Thomas. Hermann In the United States, the two private organizations that are monitoring the intolerance group and the hatred group are Anti - Trauma Union (ADL) and South Poverty Act Center (SPLC). They held a list of anti-Semitic, anti-government, extremist groups that considered hatred groups, supremacist groups, and hate crimes. The definition of SPLC's "Hate group" includes any belief or group of actions that attacks or insults the entire group, especially if the features of the beggars are unchanged. However, at least in SPLC, including a group in a list does not mean "that group advocates or participates in violence or other criminal acts." According to the SPLC, in the United States from 2000 to 2008, the activity of the Hate group increased by 50%, there were a total of 926 active groups. Recently, the word alt-right is an abbreviation for "alternative rights" and it is used.

When I was a sophomore at college, Republicans recommended to speak on a campus to a conservative political activist, Phyllis Schlafly, known for opposing the approval of equivalent rights amendment. There was no obstacle around the building she spoke. Some on-campus police Discussions on freedom of speech on campus will either support or not support speaker invitations, whether students should be allowed to protest the speakers, whether they think it is impossible, Do not limit who invites you. When students investigate their thoughts about these topics, their answers are used as agents to measure whether students will support the right of freedom of expression. This dichotomy framework provides situations like catch 22 to many student activists. By expressing any public opposition to controversial speakers such as Charles Murray, we are depicted as opposed to the protection of basic constitutional rights. Then, the only way to avoid these criticisms is to keep silent (cynically) and to not control and hate disagreeable remarks. This is not an option In preparation for another grade which will controversial in terms of freedom of speech. In recent Gallup poll survey, university students "abstractly" support the right of the first amendment, but to become "accustomed" to terminate freedom of speech to "limit" unpleasant or biased remarks Taking the scale of the discussion at the campus from the free expression of last year which is being done, the result of the investigation is that the real problem is beyond the hottest heading like "death of freedom of speech on college campus" Provide the evidence.

California state university San Bernardino California State University reports that Monday announced Monday that the hate crime rate in the top ten cities across the country increased by 12% last year, the highest for more than 10 years It reached. The total number of hat offenses in the top 10 cities in the US has increased sharply in 2017 for four consecutive years. California State University hate and extremism center found that police cases in cities such as Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles increased by 12.5% ​​last year. Brian Levine, coauthor of the report, said this growth was due to greater "civilization" of state politics and quoted a travel ban to the Muslim countries in the cards. BBQ Becky, Permit Patty, and why the Internet humilates black people California State University's San Bernardino Canada Hate Experience Center reported in 2018 that the hate crime rate reported by the police in the top ten cities of the United States increased by 12.5% ​​in 2017 and continued for 4 consecutive years It is continuous for the year. It was always the best peak. According to the survey, anti-black crime was the most common crime case in the top ten cities in the country in 2017. Debra Davis was standing in the kitchen of the Creole family in Michigan where she lived for 15 years. When her family's car was destroyed in their vestibule, she used this moment to teach ethnic intolerance to her grandchild today. "They have the opportunity to see what they are seeing from a distance," Davis said. According to the new data, "The total number of total hatred crimes has reached the highest level in the last 10 years in the past 10 years." Between hunger crime increase and the ongoing # LivingWhileBlack event and other events I believe there is a direct link. Reported on crime and speech and racist policies of president Donald J. Trump. In the column posted in the St. Louis Post survey, researchers also noted that Russia's fraudulent attempts to raise "racial disharmony" during the 2016 presidential election and to suppress black voting I mentioned the influence of Russian advertisement. Possible factors of growing hatred. Crime They believe that there is a need for further investigation, but there seems to be a correlation between the increase in targeted social media advertisements and the nearly simultaneous increase in aversive crimes. "

Words are not only written and expressed by someone but there are ways that people express their thoughts and believe in other meanings. Gestures, signs, paintings, pictures, etc. are all varied forms of sound. Our government guarantees freedom of speech, but not everyone can talk anytime, anywhere, anything. Then this country may be a terrible place to live. Imagine a huge noise from your car speakers and subwoofers near your home at 2 am. private Defending standard freedom of speech in Hate speech is simply to ask for "more speech" to fight it. More speech may be useful in recent "unification rights" meetings in Charlottesville where more American citizens condemn all Nazis' slogans, symbolism and embarrassment rather than endorse them. We need to say hundreds of Caucasian voter votes, the firearms they exercise, and the terrorist acts committed by one of them, but we may hesitate to speak with them in the future not. Racial incitement, abusive speech, blatant hatred's speech must be absolutely regarded as legally protected speech. If the rights of people expressing such statements are infringed by the state authorities, they must obtain the necessary remarks to explore legal instruments. Correct measures will unify precedents and will give greater freedom to limit the overall remark to the government. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the US Constitution and many state constitutions and the first revision of state and federal law. Freedom of speech is not absolute, the US Supreme Court acknowledges several statements that are excluded from freedom and the government can take reasonable hours, places or restrictions on speech I admitted. In most cases it is acceptable to criticize the government and to argue that people may find unpleasant opinions contrary to offensive or public policy. There are exceptions to these general protections, such as the testing of obscene articles by Miller, child pornography, temptation to imminent action, regulation of commercial speech such as advertisements.

Even if you are superior to others, that is human nature. So far, this means that you make this person feel untouchable in the world. In many cases, people use free speech cards and leave it unused. Freedom of speech has certain limitations. Where you can tell what you want yet, you can not tell where you hurt others. Yes, we are human beings, but that does not mean that we can say what we want without any result. As a human being, we should not use new ways to hurt people, but to use words to avoid hurting people. Of course, we are not perfect, but we never have it. As it may be too late before someone notices that someone is suffering damage, we can at least let stop the hatred's speech. Even if it takes a long time to stop speech it dislikes, it is worth the wait. Logically, I think humans do not completely eradicate it. Some may argue that freedom of speech should be greatly limited. Freedom of speech should be limited to our society and freedom of speech does not involve talking about government rights. But please think about it. If freedom of speech is restricted, we can not change the rules set by the government. It is not possible to change the error of the rule. It is a good example right now. Recently the United States has been discovered to monitor US citizens and other countries through the Internet. People working inside the government made this clear. Without freedom of speech, the American people do not know that their government is monitoring them. But freedom of speech exists, so we can know. The country should not restrict freedom of speech It is clear whether freedom of speech behavior should be limited by the government. By restricting freedom of speech, we must safely state that violence by words such as dislike speech, racial discrimination, hate is clearly reduced. Through these reductions, you can truly witness the true nature of freedom of speech. Actions and laws that reduce behavioral restrictions also play a major role in maintaining social relationships among the groups. The essence of freedom of speech brings undue power to people. We can now see how to introduce a new law to reduce these powers. Freedom of expression continues to be a specific right, so there may be more restrictions to better adapt to the needs of the general population and to reduce the harm caused by people's speech. In this way, the future is seeking forward as rights can be used in the proper way they are intended to be used.

Even if you are superior to others, that is human nature. So far, this means that you make this person feel untouchable in the world. In many cases, people use free speech cards and leave it unused. Freedom of speech has certain limitations. Where you can tell what you want yet, you can not tell where you hurt others. Yes, we are human beings, but that does not mean that we can say what we want without any result. As a human being, we should not use new ways to hurt people, but to use words to avoid hurting people. Of course, we are not perfect, but we never have it. As it may be too late before someone notices that someone is suffering damage, we can at least let stop the hatred's speech. Even if it takes a long time to stop speech it dislikes, it is worth the wait. Logically, I think humans do not completely eradicate it. Some may argue that freedom of speech should be greatly limited. Freedom of speech should be limited to our society and freedom of speech does not involve talking about government rights. But please think about it. If freedom of speech is restricted, we can not change the rules set by the government. It is not possible to change the error of the rule. It is a good example right now. Recently the United States has been discovered to monitor US citizens and other countries through the Internet. People working inside the government made this clear. Without freedom of speech, the American people do not know that their government is monitoring them. But freedom of speech exists, so we can know. The country should not restrict freedom of speech It is clear whether freedom of speech behavior should be limited by the government. By restricting freedom of speech, we must safely state that violence by words such as dislike speech, racial discrimination, hate is clearly reduced. Through these reductions, you can truly witness the true nature of freedom of speech. Actions and laws that reduce behavioral restrictions also play a major role in maintaining social relationships among the groups. The essence of freedom of speech brings undue power to people. We can now see how to introduce a new law to reduce these powers. Freedom of expression continues to be a specific right, so there may be more restrictions to better adapt to the needs of the general population and to reduce the harm caused by people's speech. In this way, the future is seeking forward as rights can be used in the proper way they are intended to be used.

Freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression are "basic rights". Without these freedoms, a truly free society can not exist. By definition, they allow citizens to communicate their ideas verbally and in print. Individuals who acquire these rights have many advantages and disadvantages. However, as with most constitutional freedoms, freedom of speech is sometimes restricted. The first amendment of the US Constitution? Congress does not enact legislation - Freedom of speech or deprivation of press freedom? "Free" as a method of saying "free" has been widespread in speech of more than half a century and popular media. In 1970, when Joni Mitchell included a song called "For Free" in her album "Wall of the Canyon", I first noticed this. Example of this song: including "free" in a song does not seem to be completely contradictory, and that song uses such common words elsewhere, eg "play really well ". Mitchell was born in the state of Alberta and grew up in Saskatchewan Province but since I lived in America for three years (two times in California) by 1970, I do not know where she is "free." In my opinion it is estimated that freedom of freedom of freedom is costly to the left and that the relative severity of these costs depends on the importance of the envisaged regulation, possible consequences, and possible implementation evaluations It will be. It also depends on the frequency of liberal power and the evaluation of the agenda they may follow. I believe that the principle of freedom of speech applies to the age of economic prosperity and conservatives can control the executive branch at least like a liberalist, so why abandon the principle of freedom of expression To abandon this principle. Big benefit brought by the river boat gambling. I admit that the principle of freedom of speech is costly, but I think that market capture paper underestimates the benefits of keeping the principle of freedom of expression and undermining the liberalism that emphasizes social movement and freedom of press . In this section, the survey investigates the public assumption about freedom of speech. Americans believe that freedom of speech is beneficial and expensive. First of all, about two-thirds (67%) believe that "freedom of speech eventually guarantees the truth will win" and 58% believe that freedom of speech protects a few views. But most people believe that speech can be violent: 53% hate speech believes that speech is a violent act, further dislikes speech will lead to violence against minorities (70%). In the end, most people (56%) think that they can protect both disgusted speech and freedom of speech.

Star Carter often switches between the two worlds. The poverty she lives, mainly the black community and the wealth where she lives, mainly white, preparatory school. When Stahl witnessed a deadly shootout of her best friend, Khalil in the hands of the policeman, the imbalance between the world was crushed. Now, in the face of pressure from all sectors of society, Stahl must find his voice and stick to the right attitude. HATE U GIVE is based on the best selling Angie Thomas of the established New York Times and the stars Amandla Stenberg, Regina Hall, Russell Hornsby, Issa Rae, KJ Apa, Algee Smith, Sabrina Carpenter, Common, Anthony Mackie. Actor: Amandla Stenberg, Regina Hall, Russell Hornsby, KJ Apa, Algee Smith, Lamar Johnson, Issa Rae, Sabrina Carpenter, Common and Anthony Mackie The official YouTube channel of the 20th century Fox movie. Avatar, Alien, X-Men, Die Hard, Dead Waiter, Ice Age, Alvin and Chipmunk, Rio, Peanut, Labyrinth Runner, Ap Planet, Wolverine etc. 20th Century Fox announced a trailer called "Hate Yugib" that was adapted from Angie Thomas' novel of the same name. George Tillman Jr. "Soul Food" Assistant and "Barber shop" producer directed the movie featuring the latest "Hunger Games" and "Everything, Everything" star Amandla Stenberg. hero. Please see below trailer - premiere at BET awards. The premise here is as follows. "Starkart constantly switches between the two worlds, the poverty in which she lives, primarily the black community, and the wealth, mainly the white reserve she lives in. Childhood best friend Hariril is a cop When shot at, the imbalance between the world shattered, stick to the right attitude. " Two weeks ago, I saw The Hate U Give (Fox, October 2018; PG - 13) which I adapted from the best selling young adult novel by Angie Thomas. The story needs to decide whether to talk after witnessing an African-American teenager Starkart, a policeman who shoots her unarmed friend. For us both, this is an emotional viewing experience. After contemplation, our idea is as follows. Shoshana: The Hate U Give is a book that made many progress (read the comments of The Horn Book Magazine). When I read it for the first time I noticed that I liked it and did not unduly simplify the complex social problems that it touched on. Many details bother me (This may help to hear many speech of eloquent authors, including when The Hate U Give received the Boston Globe novel award)

In this article we will explore the hostility of the Internet against American traditional values. At a very deep level, the Internet world is sometimes indifferent and even hostile to morality. This is because the network culture is deeply filled with contemporary postmodern consciousness and there is no absolute truth or if anything is not close to human reason (1). Cyber ​​hatred - advertisement of hatred and Internet censorship Internet is an ideal medium for hatred groups like Neo Nazis, because of its popular exposure, cheap, uncensored nature and easily exposed features. The Internet allows hatred groups to reach a wide audience: vulnerable children are most vulnerable. Because of the international nature of the Internet, and not so much debate on freedom of speech, censorship attempt failed. On the contrary, freedom of speech is being exercised ... the Internet distributes more information than any other media in the world. Due to some problems on the Internet, "People began to worry about their use when the public began using the Internet" (Clark 1). Some groups believe the World Wide Web is dangerous because of its open accessibility, but other groups think that the Internet can be used to share knowledge on a global scale. Hate groups around the world are spreading publicity - this is not new. The latest information is that with the advent of the Internet, dislike groups can now share information with millions of people around the world simply by clicking the mouse. Before the Internet emerged, the hatred group was still somewhat isolated, and we had no choice but to communicate with others in our own way of today's standards. Flyers, anonymous mails, street demos, etc. are the only way to use disliked groups. But today, militants can easily share their information with hundreds of anonymous extremists and an undoubted audience. The more common types of communication that hate groups on the Internet use are encrypted e-mails, newsgroups, lists, and chat rooms.

Participants sat next to the poster and speakers from various faiths gave a speech entitled "Love is Strongly Annoyance" at the religious rally at the Phoenix Islamic Community Center. The meeting corresponded to the anti-Muslim rally held in the same place previously. "I am afraid to go out, if I stay inside, I will not be confused, I will carefully supervise.I can not speed up, I can not fear who I am in Gitmo "American Muslim writer Shawna Ayoub Ainslie said she shared her experience with Huffington Post's article We examined the FBI data on hate crimes against Muslims and found that her fears were not entirely unfounded. Looking at the data summarized by the FBI, the number of anti - Muslim hate crimes in 2001 rose sharply from 28 to 481. This number declined in the coming years, but it never recovered to the level reported before the 9/11 attack. We also would like to see the total number of hatred crimes to understand the bigger situation. You can see the overall downward trend. But if you break down other religions, you will see hate crimes against Muslims do not follow the general downward trend. We report that the anti-Muslim hate crime is the second few, but in 2001 it became the second highest religious prejudice after the anti-Jewish hate crime. However, Jews are always subject to faith, but the number of cases has declined sharply since 2008. On the other hand, hate crimes against Muslims all over the world are also increasing. For example, Canada instantly increased its anti-Muslim attack by 16 times within a year of the 9/11 incident. Only 11 crimes were reported in the year leading up to the attack, but 173 dislike crimes were reported within one year from the incident on September 11. It also happens in the UK and Australia. In the latter case, a survey conducted in Sydney and Melbourne showed that the vast majority of Muslim residents suffered racist or racist violence after the attack. According to another study, all Muslim hate crimes increased since 9/11, but the relative risk of those living in countries with low Muslim population was much higher. According to the FBI, the hate crime reported by the police to the police sharply increased shortly after the terrorist attack of the 9/11 case. According to the report, the number of criminal cases against Muslims in 2001 was 481, compared with 28 in the previous year. However, between 2002 and 2014, the number of anti-Muslim crime has decreased between 105 and 160 each year. This number is several times higher than before 9/11. Other government data such as Ministry of Justice statistics rely on about 200,000 housing crime investigations, not police reports, indicating serious official hate crimes. These surveys are based on respondents' respondents to researchers and show that the annual average of hat offenses far exceeds 250,000 nationwide. After the September 11 attack on New York, the hate crime rate for the Middle East, Arabs or Muslims rose to a very high level. According to the FBI, there were 93 anti-Muslim attacks in 2001 and 12 cases in 2000. Although the number of hat offenses reported has been declining year by year, recent data suggests that the number of racial discrimination against Muslims is increasing again. In the United States of 2015, there are 91 reports of anti-Muslim attacks, between 2015 and 2016, anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by 67%. However, recent events have shown that these hate crimes, racial discrimination and other forms of racial discrimination affect other ethnic minorities such as African American, Mexican American and Asian Americans It shows that it is.

Deviant behavior is behavior that is done by people beyond everyday things. Bank robberies, car thefts, individual attacks can easily be regarded as anomalies, but people may deviate from abandonment of legal rights and may not violate the law. The Westborough Baptist Church is a congregation that is not illegal under any law but is considered illegal. The Westborough Baptist church is known to be disgusting and many people do not approve their behavior. The Westborough Baptist Church is actually an anomalous group disguised. The Westborough Baptist Church has earned the reputation that it expanded the boundary of freedom of expression. As a typical example of an organization using hate speech, the Westborough Baptist Church in the military funeral of 2011 held a funeral to soldiers killed in Iraq. This group protested to his son's funeral "thank God for death as a soldier" and "God hates the United States / thanks God 9", so the soldier's father deliberately emotionally suffered Fred Phelps and his church He gave an appeal. information. 11. " The Westborough Baptist Church (WBC) is undoubtedly the most hated and fanatical group of hatred in the United States. The organization is basically a family-based personality worship built around its patriarch Fred Phelps. The slogan of the WBC is known for "its gods hate Fag" because of its intense vs. gay faith and the rough indications that its members frequently protested. If you decide to call it a disgusting Westborough Baptist church at that year's San Diego Comic Show, you must do what they have to do to get the clown. * Since one of the most famous rebellion buzzwords is "God hates fag", I think that if you are wearing a Starfleet uniform and moving the logo of "God hats the Jedi" it will work. Since this picture is broadcast on the Internet every few years, I think it is worthwhile to provide a permanent background here. You have it: this is the source of this picture, that is the reason I wear what I wear, and that is why this sign signifies that role. I really do not dislike "Star Wars", but at that time it was a joke. Ok, so I know what you are thinking. The Westborough Baptist church is made up of perfect geeks, as I mentioned in yesterday's post, they hate almost all existing cultural and religious groups. So how can their "preaching" have logic? - In fact, does this constitute a really disgusting disgusting speech? I am not completely convinced of myself. But I guess that if the WBC calls itself a religious organization, it must have a potential belief. The so-called "the way to salvation." Even strange suicide worshipers like heavenly gates believe members can survive and survive their earth by jumping into the UFO during skiing of Comet Hael Pop. So what are these core beliefs for the WBC?

Congress shall not enact legislation on banning religious beliefs and free exercise, loss of freedom of speech and freedom of press, or the rights of people to peaceful gatherings and the right to seek relief from the government. Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, press and petition is prescribed in Article 1 of the amendment to the US Constitution. On the other hand, these rights are included in Article 1 of the Nevada Constitutional Amendment: a nontransferable right, a quarter soldier, a jury trial, and the right to carry weapons. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are stated in Article 9 of the Nevada Constitution. Article 10 of the Nevada State Constitution provides for the rights of petitions and gatherings. The right to carry weapons and camp soldiers was also found in the second and third amendments; Sections 11 and 12 of the Nevada Constitutional Chapter The first amendment includes five "freedoms": religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, rally and petition. In many cases, the pleading part of the first amendment called the petition clause states, "People have the right to appeal to the government to support or oppose policies that affect them, including rights and legislation To support legislation that supports or opposes "(Corp First Amendment Center) (2). A simpler definition of a petition right is "the right to claim the government without receiving immunity or retaliation". This right is guaranteed by the first revision of the US Constitution "(Historical Center, 1) Many people think freedom of speech is their own modification. In fact, it is also part of the first revision, which also protects religious freedom, right of assembly, freedom of press, and the right to petition the government during complaints. Of course freedom of speech is the key to defending these other freedoms. The court ruled repeatedly that unpleasant remarks are uncomfortable or contrary to protected public opinion. In other words, it is protected by the constitution. In Europe, there are so-called "collective defamation laws" that protect people from hate speech in many countries.

History has developed in two ways. Legal leadership focuses on oral presentation and written slogan. Until 1500, British printing companies needed to be licensed and linked to the government. This is because the written text was thought to have the potential of risking political forces. However, as the time goes on, the law has advanced and now freedom of speech is the foundation of democratic rights and freedom, so freedom of speech is necessary for democratic work and participation of the community for decision making Is required. Jealousy is a form of expression that impairs a person's reputation, usually when they fully understand their erroneous statements.诽谤 is the shape of., 诽谤 is time of.. America 's defamation prevention law dates back to British law in the American colonial era, but in the majority of America' s history, the constitution was thought to be unprotected by the 1 st or 14 th amendment. As a result, the state has enacted various laws against blasphemy and defamation. However, in the 1964 Supreme Court ruling, so-called public principles have been established, according to which public standards are relaxed over the general public. In this case, the New York Times announced the attack advertisement against police chiefs violating the citizenship of the city against the head of the Montgomery Police Department in Alabama. Sullivan filed a lawsuit against the New York Times with inaccurate statements. Freedom of speech, censorship, problems other than government, review of voluntary restrictions, self-censorship Liberty and freedom of speech are equally important concepts in our society. The right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the right protected from the lies of others. Therefore, exercising freedom of speech is essential, and the law of defamation helps to do so. I personally believe that defamation is one of the most important parts of the Tort Law. Furthermore, it is best not to infringe the freedom of speech. Defense of defense used in defamation attempted to balance the freedom of speech with defamation. However, in some cases, freedom of speech may eventually be infringed. In fact, democracy has certain restrictions on certain freedoms. Various restrictions such as copyright law and slander law. Anti - democratic rhetoric, attempts to harm human rights and promote or prove terrorism may be limited. During the Cold War, the United States had more than Europe, and this restriction applies to Communists. Currently they are used more frequently in organizations that are seen as promoting terrorism or instigating hate groups. Examples of laws are countermeasures against terrorism, abolition of Hezbollah satellite broadcasts, and laws against hate speech. Critics argue that these restrictions may be too strict and that there may not be appropriate and fair judicial proceedings