Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech? - Argumentative Essay

Introduction

It has been proved that hateful speech has paramount combinations of harm when it comes to emotional perspective. Hate speech is any speech that depicts hatred aligned to a certain group either minority or the dominant group. Free speech translates to the freedom to speak in accordance to the permit by the law and other relevant governing bodies embodying a particular group. Certain boundaries are demarcating the freedom to speech. The ability to express oneself is taken to be a natural right because the government, in other words, cannot provide it.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

M'Bala M'Bala got banned in France by making an inverted Nazi salute in two favorite cities also consequently fined for his hate speech deeds he executed. At the same time in Israeli government has developed local concern on mumbling of the Holocaust and the rise of anti-Semitism in global perspective. In the United States, the actions executed by the two countries sounds to be missing elements of democracy. The US first amendment curtails people who have been subjected to illegality in other countries. The State court upheld the rights of the neo-Nazis to inclination through the Skokie town which hosted many survivors of Holocausts as the locals. In the contemporary world, the court of supreme upheld the church right of antagonistically in comparison to gays serving in the military domain from picketing the funeral of the death personnel serving as a marine with a sign implicating the word 'God is a hater of fags.' It may also be acknowledged by others that the US fixation of speech has escalated above the bar standards. It should also be recognized that the United States is the main outlier among a bundle of democracies responsible in granting generosity of free speech. (Strossen et al.9)

Other countries such as Brazil with the inclusion of five others curtail the use of Nazi flags as well as symbols. Some of the popular countries have been making steps and efforts in outlawing the holocausts. In the United States, the speech is not limited in any case. Specific categories have existed in which the first amendment cannot protect the speaker at all times. This is because the right to speak is spared for the protection of national welfare as well as the publicity thus the safety. A person has no right to haul all over by mentioning the term 'fire' in a theater. Most severe penalties are reserved for the crimes motivated by biasness in relevant jurisdictional bodies. The court of supreme held up the speech which was meant to intimidate such as the cross burning in 2003. The fact remains that people tend to place limits on speech privileged physically rather than the emotional impact opposite of the requirement.

The research that has been recently conducted shows that the individuals subjected to emotional and at the same time physical pain, the harm in the emotions is directly proportional to that inflicted on the body. It can continuously last and characterized by trauma. Pain has a connection in the brain of a human being thus emotional distress can result in body sickness. The neo-Nazis can yearn for the third Reich failing for the re-traumatization of victims of Hitler.

The Neo-Nazis should be allowed free speech since it is essential in the protection of ideas, morals, values as well as ethics. It provides the baseline for all societal beliefs. As a result of flawlessness of fear, one can get assured protection unlike the old times of the Soviet era. Thereby, it allows the Neo-Nazis from living with the emotional persecutions of morals, ideas, values, ethics as well as various systems of beliefs. The free speech also allows the Neo-Nazis get protected against tyrannical governments. For instance, it harbors the government from maiming the opposing views thus the ability to debate when the government tends to deviate from the truth.

In line to that, the Neo-Nazis if granted the free speech gets protected from involvement and staying in silence. A person has the right and obligations of staying silent at any speculation of time. The neo-Nazis also as a result of free speech can get the protection of correcting the record. In some cases, a political candidate can divulge false information, an individual can then research on the topic, and if discovered and proved it was wrong, arguments can be raised freely. Free speech also protects to dismantle and debate ideas which are wrong.

Conclusion

The free speech is a vital aspect of a reliable, honest, open and worthwhile society. It, therefore, provides a vast range of protection to individuals from all the backgrounds either poor or well off. It tends to give the social thinkers who are free thus the society can be driven and led ethically.

Works Cited

Strossen, Nadine. Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. , 2018. Print.