Create a 5 pages page paper that discusses social philosophy: hate speech and distributive justice.

Create a 5 pages page paper that discusses social philosophy: hate speech and distributive justice. In this case, they would use derogatory remarks about the African Americans and Jews and call them inappropriate words such as niggers or compare them with evil. The whites were considered virtuous while black represented darkness and evil.

Though the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution as contained in the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it is not right for anyone to spread hate speech about a person or group of persons simply because of their color, race, or religion. The Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit discrimination based on these conditions or even the previous condition of servitude. In my view, hate speech should thus not be entertained regardless of freedom of speech as it is harmful to those against whom the speech is being directed. Furthermore, it intimidated the Blacks and Jews and prevented them from enjoying their rights due to fear and violence. However, the U.S Supreme Court in its Brandenburg v Ohio case decision thought otherwise.

Clarence Brandenburg was the leader of an affiliate group of Ku Klux Klan in Ohio who in a rally in Hamilton County, Ohio in April 1969, propagated hate speech against the Blacks and Jews. He had invited the Cincinnati T.V station to televise and film the events whereby hooded armed figures were shown as well as burning of a large wooden cross. In addition, Brandenburg gave a hate speech where he used the word “vengeance” and derogatory reference to Blacks and Jews.2 He was thus arrested and convicted in the state of Ohio in the Brandenburg v Ohio (395 U.S. 444) case decision. He was accused of violating the Ohio Criminal Syndication Statute of 1919 which prohibited advocacy of violence as a means of accomplishing political gains. Brandenburg appealed the decision to an intermediate appellate court which upheld the decision and likewise, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the case on the ground that it lacked constitutional questions.&nbsp.