Debate Controversy Regarding Free Speech And Hate Speech

Colleges and universities are places of higher education and learning. Part of this learning comes from listening and understanding opposite views from your own. Positively, these zones have allowed students to avoid any ideas they may not want to hear; however, avoidance is not the way around life. Another positive outcome of free speech on campuses is that students are able to bind together

College is a time when most individuals are experiencing major changes and begin to explore new perspectives. The transition in becoming more independent, creating new insights and peer influence are key factors in changing the perspective of an individual. Students are faced with new ideas from their professors, family and fellow peers. Through that acquired knowledge many students decide that they either agree or disagree with the perspectives that they are taught. Allowing the right of ‘Free Speech’ on public college campuses has become an important issue that many public colleges are starting to address. In college students are capable of

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime

On January 13th, 2017, Chancellor Ralph Hexter of UC Davis emailed students in response to Martin Shkreli and Milo Yiannopoulos not being allowed speak at a campus event due to heated protests. The controversial Yiannopoulos is a open critic of many social justice movements, like feminism and Black Lives Matter. He’s specifically said during his events at his tour that muslims are rapists, publically yelled at a muslim for wearing a hijab, and promotes Blue Lives Matter. ('I Just Want to Burn It down') Additionally, Shkreli is a businessman who is now a convicted felon. So in response, many students were outraged and deeply upset by this organized event. In the email the Chancellor quoted the ACLU, explaining that we “can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.” However this will cause violence and make many feel patronized by the words spurred out by public speakers, like Yiannopoulos and Shrekli. Even though inviting people of different views seems like unifying people from all backgrounds, when people are content with their hatred and speak them out openly, it causes more complication. The opposite side wants to cover their ears and find the nearest exit. To be realistic, any young student won’t be welcoming with open arms to close minded speakers, especially if it seems as the main thing they desire is to get a rise out of you. The most efficient way to unify people is being respectful

“I have opinions that, frankly, a lot of people are thinking. They just won't tell people. They don't pollsters. They don't tell journalists. But they think it” (Lieberman). These are the words of conservative blogger and self-proclaimed “provocateur,” Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos had been scheduled to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but given UC Berkeley Police Department’s security concerns surrounding his appearance, the event had been cancelled. Yiannopoulos argues that his First Amendment right had been violated and vows to return for a future event, “Free Speech Week.” Additionally, Ku Klux Klan activist Chris Cantwell has been invited to speak. The University argues that due to Yiannopoulos’ past doxing activities and the threat of violence associated with his presence, it is not required to accommodate such speech. In this memo, I will provide legal precedents arguing that 1) “Free Speech Week” should be permitted to proceed with or without Chris Cantwell, 2) the associated KKK rallies should be permitted to proceed, and 3) a counter-argument addressing the strengthening of civil disobedience.

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

Hate speech is a term of art in legal and political theory that is used to refer to verbal conduct – and other symbolic, communicative action –which willfully attacks a person or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate speech thus includes things like identity-prejudicial abuse and harassment, certain uses of slurs and epithets, some extremist political and religious speech. For example, statements to the effect that all Muslims are terrorists, or that gay people are second -class human beings, and certain displays of hate symbols like swastikas or burning crosses are part of it. Those such activities are classified as hate speech if, and insofar as, they convey the idea that belonging to a particular social group warrants someone’s being held in or treated with contempt. However, Freedom of speech is the most important and basic right that a human in every country deserves. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two opposite things. Therefore, the government needs to draw a line between hate speech and freedom of speech to protect a citizen. Hate speech should be banned and extreme speech regulated because it is one of the reasons for many negative consequences in human lives

In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, where a white supremacist rally turned violent, the argument on whether or not hate speech should be banned has become increasingly more relevant. Those supporting the ban argue that this kind of speech eventually creates a society that doesn’t accept the affected minorities as equals, and can shame them into silence. On the other side, people argue this would infringe upon free speech rights. In Glenn Greenwald’s article, “In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Being used to Silence Left Wing Beliefs,” he addresses how this ban might affect left-wing activism, and the fallacies in the arguments supporting the ban. Greenwald mainly relies on logos to back up his thesis; that a hate speech ban would not work in America. The problem he faces with this as his argument is that it makes the assumption that these same issues would arise in America. Other than a brief mention of his time as a lawyer to back up one talking point, there is very little ethos. While his tone throughout the article feels very neutral and informative, he makes poor use of logos and ethos, leading to an ineffective argument.

For one thing, in the op-ed “Can We Start Taking Political Correctness Seriously Now?” the author Chait summarizes that the protesters in the student demonstration at the University of Missouri besieged a photographer. Most supporters on the left think that young people want to keep themselves from any offense, and they believe that political correctness only occurs on campus; however, the truth is that political correctness will spread beyond the campuses. Next, Chait compares the Columbia event to the New Haven scene. Both of them express doubt in the “political democracy.” Finally, the author claims that the political correctness is excessive on campus, and leftists cannot escape the problem of political correctness. On the other hand, in the op-ed “The Delicate Little Flowers on Today’s College Campuses,” the author Goldberg explains that the Yale riot is due to the reply of a caution to stop wearing Halloween costumes. Also, as the scientist analyzes, current college students are so delicate that they always think they are offended. Then, Goldberg gives us the conclusion that it is the problem of education rather than political correctness itself. At last, he visualizes that these students flow into the society with “emotional cocoon” in the future. Although Chait’s Op-ed shows effective self-presentation in his claim about the leftist ideology of the political correctness, Goldberg does a better job by providing concrete evidence in logos and pathos in

In the speech “Lessons of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” by Cesar Chavez. Cesar Chavez calmed his audience to have a non-violent march. In the speech it says “Thousands of people have worked for our cause and have gone on to achieve success in many different fields. Our non-violent cause will give you skills that will last a lifetime.”(Page Number: 328 paragraphs 70 and 71). This evidence shows what rhetoric can do to calm an audience to do what the author wants to do.This piece of evidence calm Cesar Chavez´s audience to not be violent with the proper use of rhetoric Cesar accomplished that goal of having a non-violent

Minorities feel uncomfortable when they are in the presence of hate speech. Although students do not like hate speech they do agree that there should be free speech on campus but they expect administration to intervene when

If I was in Jamie Ramos shoes I would try to show the protesters of the tobacco company that the organization “Unified Tobacco” does care about ethics and the needs of the society. Jamie should explain how warning labels are put on all their tobacco products now and advertisements are created to inform people about the dangers of smoking tobacco. Jamie also needs to explain how the company donates $1.5 million to charities and causes and how Unified Tobacco employees volunteer ten hours a month in their communities. Many companies are very involved in the wellbeing of the community but their good deeds are not known by the community. By convincing the protestors that the organization does care about the wellbeing of the society then they

Throughout the history of free speech on campuses, University of California Berkeley has always been one of the most well know campuses to support free speech and has always encouraged people to express themselves and to be open to opposing viewpoints. During speech week, people came from all over to expand their knowledge and to have new experiences. People didn't come to the campus to see police overtaking the school and barriers all over the place to protect the speakers. The University of California Berkeley has paid over hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure the safety of the speakers. There are more students and faculty that are trying to prevent speakers from coming to their campus. They think they are shutting down hate speech. On the other hand, campus officials are trying to protect the freedom of expression. The students and some faculty members were most likely the first generation to be taught when they were younger that bullying is wrong. This manifested into the idea that if someone disagreed with you, they were bullying you. This, in turn, created a culture of young, oversensitive students. On the other hand, the older generation of people encourage free speech because they know how hard equal expression was to obtain during the civil rights era.

In modern society, the issue of free speech vs. censorship often comes up. It is a hot topic among those interested in social issues, and represents two well meaning but very different arguments. The argument for freedom of speech says that communication and connectivity promotes progress, while the argument for censorship says that silence and isolation promotes security.

In her article, Does Protesting Make a Difference?, Yasmin Khan claims that showing your support for a cause that helps defend the rights of a marginalized group is essential in order to inculcate a feeling of solidarity among the people. Protests uncover the disappointment of the general public about the