Free speech is of the most important bricks in the foundation of democracy in the western world, and it is a topic that always will be a subject of discussion. As charismatic and freely speaking leaders such as Donald Trump get more and more time in global media, it can be argued that free speech never has been as discussed as it is today. The importance of free speech is undisputed. For the Earth's population to have the freedom that much of the western world are enjoying today, it is crucial that freedom of expression is protected, and that people can  --  confidently and without fear of the consequences, say their opinions. However, if it should be protected by all means, and if expressing anything to anyone is ought to be protected, is an issue that occupies me. Hate speech, is a topic that occupies me. Should one have the rights to hatefully express oneself about a group of people? Because of their race, their job situation or their sexuality, to mention some points? It is impossible to remain unaffected by what our idols and leaders say or do, or to overlook what the global media is writing about them. We are swallowed in by their persuasive personalities, and as a result, we tend to follow their examples, whether it is within topics such as fashion, sports or politics. That is why it is important for these significant people to be aware of their appearance in public and global press. When they are not, the results will be seen, and they can turn out to be critical. 

In August 2015, two white, American brothers in their 30s gave the US a display of how hate speech can lead to something way more serious, namely hate crime. They beat up with a metal pole, broke the nose, and urinated on a homeless, Hispanic man on their way back from a Red Sox game. Especially one of them, the older brother Scott, justified this by pointing to one of the Republican's candidates to run for President, Mr. Donald Trump: "Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported (The Atlantic, 2015), was among other things what the assaulter told the police. What Mr. Scott does here, is to admit that he and his brother did this violent act as a result of Donald Trump's hateful speeches. Their decision to beat up this defenseless man originated from the speeches of a man that could end up to be this country's next president. The whole incident is tragic enough in itself, and it could've ended even worse  --  with the death of a helpless man. And incidents like these, are the ones that should make compassionate human beings think twice about the bottomless protection of free speech.

There is a difference between hate speech, and violence that has its origin from hate speech. Even though the story of the Hispanic man is a tragic one, it can be argued that it was the two brothers choice to do what they did. Yes, Mr. Donald Trump is saying things in his speeches that are quite controversial. But it is still the responsibility of every man to make his own decisions. Because of this, it can be said that hate speech itself is quite harmless. After all, it doesn't really hurt anyone, does it? It depends. In 2011, the Supreme Court defended a group of people that showed up to a military funeral with posters saying "Thank God for dead soldiers", and other horrible sayings (Caplan, 2015). No, it doesn't harm anyone in a physical way. But isn't this psychological violence to a degree that simply can't be accepted? The families and friends of dead soldiers are paying their last respects to their beloved ones, and have to stand through insults so sinister that I can't even imagine how it feels to be in their shoes. 

John M. Budd and Jenny S. Bossaller argues in their article "The Things We Talk about When We Talk about Free Speech" that:

"Limiting speech by law is not the key to civility. Instead, people must be taught to listen to others and compromise  --  education and an insistence on civility in discourse (by the people) is the key." (p. 17)

This is reasoning that I can understand. It sounds quite nice, actually. However, I think we live in a world that is a bit more complex than that. I'm afraid that we never will accomplish a world where all of us will come along to the extent that this Budd and Bossaller's dream of. It's a brutally negative thought, and I hope I'm wrong. 

The rights of mankind have always been grabbing my attention. Free speech was therefore a natural topic to closely gaze upon in this project. As I've been trying to demonstrate, there are many different aspects to take in consideration when discussing such a hot topic, that so many people are having strong opinions on. I am of the belief that the world is more complicated than do or don't/legal or illegal. That's why I think alterations to free speech not necessarily is a bad thing  --  if it can prevent violence, both physical and psychological.

