Free Speech versus Hate Speech Student’s name Institutional affiliation FREE SPEECH VERSUS HATE SPEECH The value of speech holds a crucial position in the success of any nation in the modern world. The democratic countries have allowed residents to decide on their choice of the speech that they employ in various instances of their lives (Van, 2017). Some people believe that free speech is the way to go since hate speech would result into conflicts resulting into untold misery among the people. Contrary, some people believe that hate speech must be applied to criticize the unethical behaviors among their counterparts (Gelber, 2012). This has been witnessed among people who have ideological differences and end up insulting each other in public. Rallies held when campaigning have been found to be filled with fury and anger as the leaders seek attention of followers to win elections. Those who believe that there is no problem with hate speech would not turn away from that unless they face punishment for the same. However, most socialists advocate for free speech due to its vast advantages and the fact that enmity is not created under any circumstance. I believe that hate speech should be eradicated and free speech should be the way to go to ensure that respect is upheld throughout the world. To start with, free speech allows every individual to air their feelings whenever they feel like without interference from anybody (Van, 2017). However, every individual must observe respect while delivering the speech by strict adherence to the law of the land. This sharing of ideas has facilitated development of countries since they allow opinions from all its citizens. This is in contrast to hate speech where dignity and respect are not upheld. Research shows that every individual has something good that they can share (Gelber, 2012). Therefore, allowing every individual to share their opinions provides a wide range of productive knowledge that could otherwise not be got from one individual. Each person has a unique advantage in a certain field. For example, allowing every student to give an opinion during discussion has proved productive. This is due to the fact that the individual who is weak in a certain subject is well equipped in a different field. Promoting free speech would thus ensure that the strength of each individual among a group is put into use. Moreover, there is no harm in having excess ideas (Van, 2017). The best of the best are selected to promote development since the most appropriate ideas are put into noble use to come with structures that are admired and can beat all the other products in the market. The business sector has greatly benefited from this stand due to the fact that the strategy put in place promotes the well-being of the current corporations and further promotes the future of the industry (Gelber, 2012). Therefore, free speech is an important component that should be put into practical use for the good of the nation and the different sectors of the economy. Secondly, free speech ensures that every individual is given their due respect irrespective of their standing in the society (Bhatia, 2016). Employing this kind of speech methodology therefore is vital for the creation of a society where mutual respect is observed for the common good of all people. Respect ensures that everyone feels honored in spite of their economic or political grounds. In contrast, hate speech ignores respect since abusive language is used. The good thing with free speech is that there is no harm to those who use it and the one to whom it is directed feels appreciated (Bhatia, 2016). Criticism is allowed but in free speech, you should only criticize respectfully. This way, the honor given as a virtue promotes the well-being of the whole society. Peace and harmony have been facilitated through free speech since the speaker aims at airing their views rather than insulting their counterparts. The free speech has been proved to be a very effective way of removing the discrimination that existed among the members of the society. Those who were ranked lower standing in terms of economic capability were not allowed to speak in public since they were considered as having nothing good to share (Bhatia, 2016). Thus, free speech is an essential component in promoting a sustainable economy where every individual is appreciated for who they are and allowed to air their feelings and be listened to accordingly (Bhatia, 2016). Free speech has served as an important tool of promoting equality between the masculine and the feminine gender. Initially, it was believed that women would not stand in a public space and address men. The male counterparts believed that they were superior and the weaker gender (women) had nothing to train them on. However, the application of free speech has proved beyond reasonable doubt that ladies can reason as much as their male counterparts (Bleich, n.d.). Contrary, hate speech does not seek the good of all but rather seeks self-protection with no adherence to ethics. It has been noted that some ladies possess great skills that men lack and would require sitting and listening to what they are directed to do. This has been witnessed by the large number of women in various fields that were initially believed to be meant for the men. Notably, the rise of the number of female doctors and engineers has proved that ladies can perform any job given to them (Gelber, 2012). The result of today emerged from the struggles of the prior heroes who refused to keep quit and watch great minds being wasted on basis of gender. Those who advocated for free speech should be appreciated for letting the society realize the importance of letting everyone provide what they are able to offer for the good of all people. Some people argue that there is nothing wrong with hate speech. They believe that every person should be allowed to criticize their counterparts with no concern for the choice of words (Bhatia, 2016). They argue that hate speech has promoted democracy in countries where it did not exist. They further say that criticism is the most appropriate way to make individuals realize their mistakes and avoid a repetition of similar misconducts. Such people believe that the hate speeches witnessed in the political field have geared the application of free democracy within various states of the world. Their argument may be true to some extent, but there is need to consider the impact of such kind of speech. Hate speech has led to moral decay in the society since individuals insult each other in public. Children who consider the parents who are abusing each other as role models end up following their traits resulting to moral decay (Bhatia, 2016). Moreover, hate speech is a show of lack of respect and respect for oneself. There are better ways to solving differences other than using abusive language that lowers the dignity of those involved. As discussed above, free speech is a desirable aspect of life that should be emulated by every individual state for the good of the nation. Every person should be allowed to air their feelings to facilitate the development of the state. All sectors of the economy require knowledge from wide range of sources in spite of the economic standing of those who bring the points on board. Free speech has facilitated the well-being of the nations in the world today. Democracy has been revolutionized in different countries of the world (Bleich, n.d.). Moreover, equality has been enhanced leading to a society that is fair and does not treat people unfairly based on gender. Proper morals are instilled in citizens due to the application of free speech unlike the hate speech that results into erosion of proper morals. A sense of respect for one another has been realized in the world with free speech (Bhatia, 2016). Moreover, appreciation for ideas from various sources has created a sense of appreciation for every person’s idea. Therefore, free speech should be allowed in every country while hate speech should be criticized. References 3. Why Call Hate Speech Group Libel? (n.d.). The Harm in Hate Speech. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674065086.c4 Bhatia, G. (2016). Hate Speech. Offend, Shock, or Disturb, 137-173. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199460878.003.0007 Bleich, E. (n.d.). Free Speech or Hate Speech? The Danish Cartoon Controversy in the European Legal Context. Global Migration. doi:10.1057/9781137007124.0008 DOWNS, D. M., & COWAN, G. (2012). Predicting the Importance of Freedom of Speech and the Perceived Harm of Hate Speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1353-1375. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00902.x Gelber, K. (2012). ‘Speaking Back’: The Likely Fate of Hate Speech Policy in the United States and Australia1. Speech and Harm, 50-71. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.003.0003 Gelber, K. (n.d.). 1. Approaching Hate Speech. The Harm in Hate Speech, 1-17. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674065086.c2 Hate speech, sex speech, free speech. (1997). Choice Reviews Online, 35(04), 35-1939-35-1939. doi:10.5860/choice.35-1939 Rae, L. (2012). Beyond Belief: Pragmatics in Hate Speech and Pornography1. Speech and Harm, 72-93. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.003.0004 Van Mill, D. (2017). Getting Rid of Hate Speech. Free Speech and the State, 79-117. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51635-6_4 FREE SPEECH VERSUS HATE SPEECH 6 Running head: FREE SPEECH VERSUS HATE SPEECH 1