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. 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. People need to be able to  --  confidently and without fear of the consequences, say their opinions. However, if expressing anything to anyone is ought to be protected, is an issue that occupies me. Should one have the rights to hatefully express oneself about a group of people? Should we accept discriminative behavior towards certain human beings because of their race, job situation or sexuality? 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 critical for some. 

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. The two urinated on, before they used a metal pole to break the nose of a homeless Hispanic man on their way back from a Red Sox game. The eldest of the two brothers, Scott Leader, justified this by pointing to one of the Republican candidates to run for President, Mr. Donald Trump. One of the things Leader said to the police was that "Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported (The Atlantic, 2015). In other words: The older of the Leader brothers is admitting 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 and innocent man. Incidents like these, are the ones that should make it difficult to be adamant about the protection of free speech. If the right to say whatever you want can lead to violent actions like this, how can we in good conscience say that every aspect of free speech should be sheltered?

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 some of his speeches that are quite controversial, but it is still the responsibility of every man or woman to make his own decisions. Because of this, it can be claimed 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 offending the fallen. "Thank God for dead soldiers", was just one of the horrible messages the mourning were exposed to (Caplan, 2015). No, it does not harm anyone in a physical way. But is not this psychological violence to a degree that simply cannot be accepted? While family and friends of dead soldiers are paying their last respects, they are exposed to insults so sinister that standing in their shoes is something that the average man most likely would find unbearably painful.

John M. Budd and Jenny S. Bossaller, PhD professors at the University of Missouri, 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 am afraid that we never will accomplish a world where all of us will come along to the extent that Budd and Bossaller dream of. It is a brutally negative thought, and hopefully they will prove me wrong. Yet, acknowledging the fact that this thought could be the truth is something we need to have in the back of our heads while discussing free speech.

The rights of mankind have always been grabbing my attention. Free speech was therefore a natural topic to take a close look at in this project. As I've been trying to demonstrate, there are many different aspects to take into consideration when discussing such a hot topic, a topic so many people are having strong opinions on. I believe that the world is more complicated than do or do not/legal or illegal. That is why I think it is important to look at the positives and negatives of hate speech, and furthermore challenge the assumed fact that free speech has to stay unregulated, "because with regulations, it is no longer free speech". I will round off by asking an important question: If some alterations to free speech can prevent violence, both physical and psychological, is it necessarily a bad thing? 

