A Narrow Constructed Regulations of Racist Hate Speech According to Charles Lawrence

Charles Lawrence and Racist Speech
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s name
Date
Freedom of speech covers all types of speeches, including racist speech. This is a right given to many but not to all. Legally, this should be part of all the citizens of a free country like the United States. However, its limitations have been evident as it does not cover all of the people. Typically, the laws formulated in line with racist hate speeches are concentrated on the marginalized or the ethnic minorities in the country. The rights do not extend to the major ethnic group in the country, even when some speeches related to their race can also result in an “ethnic hate speech.” There is a narrow construction of laws against racism hate speeches for these only concentrates on the ethnic minorities, specifically the African Americans, as evident in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It does not, in any manner, seem to protect the rights of the White Americans against hate speech, and those who are innocent are often neglected even when their race is also being attacked in the form of harmful speech that can also ruin their reputation.
There is a narrow delineation between the freedom of speech and the regulation against hate speech on racism. Lawrence (1990) provided concrete examples of how the First Amendment and the equal protection clause affected the ethnic majority. The examples pertain to how they are subjected to ridicule when their speech is questioned on the grounds of racism. However, many do not see how the ethnic majority also suffers, especially the innocent, compared to those who are brave enough to voice their intuitions and philosophies.
The first example is when a student at the University of Michigan went to class and read what was written on the board, saying, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste—especially on a nigger (Lawrence, 1990).” In this example, the freedom of speech allowed that individual to write something quite offensive based on the current teachings of our morality. However, this is also considered hate speech as it is directed to a single ethnic group—the Blacks. The problem with this example is that the person who wrote the hate speech will be criticized and subjected to the same hate speech in the future due to his actions. However, he will not have the same protection as that of the ethnic minorities because if this person is White, which will most probably be the case, then the hate speeches will come raining on him. Instead of educating him properly and protecting him against such criticisms, this will happen, especially when he is still a student or a minor. If he is just criticized and does not come to his senses, the double-edged sword of hate speeches will only propagate into the future, and neither side will learn from such mistakes.
Another example is Brown v. Board of Education, where the former argues that the separation of the ethnic minority from the majority in school, specifically the Blacks and the Whites, respectively, provide an ideology that the Blacks are untouchables. This was done under the presumption that all individuals are entitled to equal protection and respect by the society based on morally c...