7
THE VECTOR
Features Opinion
Week of September 12, 2017
The Aftermath By Sarah Umer | Staff Writer During the late afternoon hours on August 17, 2017, Barcelona witnessed the deadliest terror attack to take place in recent memory. At approximately 5 p.m. local time, a van was driven into the crowds on the main street, Las Ramblas. The aftermath resulted in 15 people dead and more than 130 injured. As the driver escaped, the city remained on lockdown until Monday, August 21 when a shootout between police and the suspect resulted in the driver’s (identified as Younes Abouyaaqoub) death. In the days following the attack, many marches and feelings of anti-hate, anti-fascism, and antiterrorism were prevalent citywide. A rally consisting of more than 2500 Muslims took place on Thursday, August 24, where, not only this attack, but all attacks carried out in the name of Islam, were condemned. The largest rally took place on Saturday, August 26, where more than 500,000 people attended an anti-fascism march. I saw the days following the attacks firsthand. I arrived in Barcelona on the 18th of August, not quite sure what to expect when I landed. Many of my friends and family asked me prior to boarding if I was scared, if I was sure if I still wanted to go, if I’d be alright. Never the type to scare easily, I assured them I’d be fine. But I was not “fine,” my heart was broken and I was grieving. Barcelona was my home. My old
apartment is a mere 600 feet from where the attacks occurred. Had these attacks taken place four years earlier, it’s entirely possible I could have been a victim. That’s the part that made everything real for me. Any one of my friends working on the Rambla could have been a victim, any one of them who lived right off the Rambla, as I once did. After finally making my way to the city’s center, love and solidarity were on full display. Candlelight memorials, Anti-Isis signs, chants of “No tenim por”—Catalan for “We are not afraid”— were up and down the Rambla. The amount of love was beautiful and the show of solidarity absolutely powerful. Being amongst the crowds of people from all corners of the globe to show our respect and love, to show that we were there in spite of the hate that transpired, was one of the most inspiring things I’ve had the pleasure of taking part in. All of us on the Rambla were grieving. All of our hearts were broken—not just for Barcelona, but for Berlin, Nice, London, New York City, a world that often seems like it’s too broken to fix. In the face of all the tragedy that seems to surround us in the world, we have always managed to bounce back. We rise from the ashes. We become stronger. But never do we become afraid.
Photo Credit: Sarah Umer Note left at one of the memorial sites: “Yes, we cry because we have a heart, but we are not afraid. Barcelona, I love you”
Photo Credit: Sarah Umer
Photo Credit: Sarah Umer Biggest candlelight memorial, located at the corner of the Rambla and Plaza de Catalunya (where the attack began)
Left, Right & Middle What is the Difference Between Free Speech & Hate Speech By Babatunde Ojo | Managing Editor
By Beshoy Shokralla |Senior Staff Writer
By Jean-Paul Rincon| Contributing Writer
Liberals
Independent
Conservative
L
N
C
The difference between free speech and hate speech is that hate speech falls under the umbrella of free speech. Free speech allows American citizens the right to express their thoughts verbally or artistically without worrying about the government censoring the original message. In other countries, such as Russia and China, the people and the press are unable to speak truthfully if it has the chance of slandering a powerful public figure – at least without fearing for their own safety. In America, hate speech may not necessarily be one hundred percent true, but that does not mean it should be censored. Ultimately, it is up to the individual receiving the message to decide to believe in the words being spoken by anyone else, President, new station and neighbor alike. The individual may ignore the hate speech or speak out against it using their own right to speak freely. The one exception to the rule – when hate speech crosses the line unprotected by free speech – is when the speech leads to imminent violence.
The first amendment is the most known of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Despite this, there has been an ever-growing debate between what constitutes unconstitutional hate speech and what truly is free speech. While there is no defined list of what is free speech, the United States Supreme Court has defined what speech is not protected under the first amendment. Types of speech that are not covered by the first amendment, according to the Supreme Court, are: speech that incites violence, speech that incites suicide, some types of false statements (such as libel, slander), obscenity and child pornography, fighting words, offensive speech, and speech owned by others (copyright). A lot of the problems we run into today are people arguing whether certain viewpoints such as those of racist groups, meet the definition of offensive speech. The legal definition of hate speech is very strict in many of the cases, and there are very complex tests put in place to decide the difference. Regardless, unless words are directly inviting violence, I don't believe it's fair to limit speech because of political differences. Using the government to limit other’s political activity will only yield bad precedent.
Liberty and freedom of speech come hand in hand, this is the principle that our forefather built our beloved republic on. However, over censorship is a path towards oppression as seen in Syria. Like all good things, there has to be a limit where a good thing towards into a bad thing, this limit is hate speech. The Supreme Court has upheld there is no hate speech exception in the first amendment through its ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Supreme Court ruled any words that incite violence, or hatred are not protected. Thus, arises the question why can various white nationalist groups conduct rallies and have not been suppressed by the authorities. Well, the answer is in the 1992 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled “hate speech” is protected unless it incites violence. As a Libertarian Conservative, I believe it is essential to protect the rights and liberties of every individual no matter whom they are or what they are. However, there comes a point where the law must prevail. If we do not safeguard ourselves from bigotry and hate we will follow the same path as Rome, towards self-destruction. As the great Benjamin Franklin once said “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech”. We are a virtuous people, let us always believe in liberty, equality and fraternity for all.