Democratic Government, Search For Truth, And Autonomy

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorized citizens with the freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. This amendment also goes to the college students. However, colleges limited the students constitutional rights by enforcing the “free speech zones”.  Colleges are places where it enable students to encounter new and challenging ideas through open debates, but free speech zones limited this. You can only express your ideas in the free speech zones, nowhere else. This can be related to burning the flag (an action that intended to make a political point against a country or its policies), if you can’t express your ideas anywhere you wants, doesn’t it also indicates a person can’t randomly choose a place to burn the flag, it have to be in a specific area. Both theses is a way to express your rights as a citizens of U.S. Therefore, colleges shouldn’t restrict the political speech of students to free speech zones.

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

One of the most landmark cases on free speech was Schenck v. United States in 1919 where Charles Schenck mailed letters to draftees of World War 1 stating that the draft was wrong and to “not submit to intimidation”. The court concluded that Schenck was not protected under the 1st amendment in this situation because it was an attempt interfere with the draft which is a criminal offense. More specifically, there has been many cases involving college speech in the 1st amendment. There has been times where college speech has been restricted through history and times where it has been encouraged. College is a place where student speech should be open but also respected. There are many famous court cases involving fan profanity, student clubs, the newspaper, on college campuses. One of the first college speech cases was Sweezy v New Hampshire where the court had to decide if the Attorney General of New Hampshire could prosecute an individual who refused to answer questions about a lecture he gave on a college campus. The court ruled in favor of Sweezy. College speech became an issue ever since that

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

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

Free speech is the fundamental right, almost assumed as a divine ordinance on humans. Preliminary development of free speech starts at universities. Though considered an integral part of academic institutions and student intellectual growth, in the recent past there is growing intolerance for free speech ‘opinions’ expressed through different mediums. This paper compares two texts, “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” by Catherine Rampell, and “Restoring free speech on campus” by Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley. This paper argues that any text, without provisioning a counter narrative for the core argument, is lacking in its sense of completeness and ability to pre-resolve reactionary dissent.

No matter what people do, everybody will have their own opinions on things and will have their ways of how they want to communicate it to other people. The different communications involve politics, problems, religion, talking over the phone, etc. In You’ve Been Warned: Speech Under Fire, it says, “A majority of college students believe universities should restrict which kinds of expression are allowed on campuses”(Robby Soave). There is a lot of talk that happens on college campus’ that offend people and even students believe that we should be limited on the things that they say. Another issue that has occurred with college campus freedom of speech is said by Catherine Rampell when a college professor was speaking of her opinions politically and a student had recorded her in the classroom. That student had posted it on the internet where it had gone viral and even got onto Fox News where they referred to the words she told the students to be an assault. This professor received threats and riots to get her fired which required her to flee her state for safety. When she was teaching her class and claiming her opinions it was obvious that she was a liberal so according to the Knight Foundation Survey, it claims that, “colleges should be able to restrict campus speech that expresses ‘political views that are upsetting or

Freedom of speech gives people The right to free speech, which is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. The questioning of these rights are

On Friday, February 24th, President Donald Trump and his administration blocked media giants such as CNN, and the New York Times from a briefing with Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary. Ever since, his policies for dealing with the media have been under even closer examination than before. President Trump has had issue with the media before, accusing them of publishing false stories and painting him as the enemy. He has said on numerous occasions that the media twists stories in order to try and sell their audience on a story, basically using their opinion to sell their news. But President Trump is guilty of this himself. The majority of his Presidential campaign was just him using national television to spout his opinion on religion,

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion regarding free speech on college campuses. Our first amendment gives us the right of Free Speech but many groups retain the ability to censor it within their own organisation, such as in the workplace and in both public and private lower education. I believe that the ability should be extended to colleges and universities (both public and private). Students should have the right to be at school while feeling physically safe. An example of this right being violated because of someone else’s “free speech” was last spring at American University in which bananas were strung up on nooses around campus with AKA (a historically-black sorority) labeled on them the day after AU’s first black female student

“Free speech” often has negative connotations because the negative outcomes are publicized more than the positive outcomes. ‘Free Speech’ is a time for individuals to express their beliefs and topic on an important issue. People chose to present themselves in a vast majority of ways such as, holding signs, making t-shirts, shouting, etc. People who chose to present themselves in disrupting ways such as, foul language, inappropriate attire are more likely to be noticed than another student that is holding a simple and respectful sign. Schmidt states, “Universities cannot censor or suppress speech, no matter how obnoxious in content, without violating their justification of existence” (2). There is no definition of what type of ‘free speech’ should be censored and not allowed. With that said, there should not be a limit on ‘free speech’

Can ambition ever turn deadly? This is an important question that William Shakespeare addressed, along with many others in his famous Play, the Tragedy of Macbeth. It is a story of how a Man by the name of Macbeth, is prophesied to by three witches, which inform him that not only shall he be Thane of Glamis, but of Cawdor also, not to mention the honorable title of King of Scotland. After hearing this, his ambition starts to gets the best of him. He begins to plots the murder of King Duncan as a result, Since Macbeth begins to believe that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is what many view as The Great Tragedy of the play, Macbeth. His Ambition and how it destroyed his life, along with the lives of many others.

On that note, we must ask ourselves this: how free is freedom of speech allowed to be? Free enough to voice an opinion but restraining

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”