Free Speech Freedom Of Speech

What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Although the First Amendment states that we should award the greatest amount of speech, racial speech is not deserving of this award because these words are meant to do nothing but harm another individual. The only time that speech may be regulated is when the victim is unable to get away from the racism such as in the home or in college bathrooms and common rooms. Lawrence feels that it is the responsibility of the university to protect the student to the fullest extent, and it is the right of the student to be able to walk around campus without being harassed. Although universities have attempted to make rules that ban the use of words as weapons to intentionally

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

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

In her article “Progressive Ideas Have Killed Free Speech on Campus” Wendy Kaminer, an American lawyer and writer, was branded a racist while having a friendly debate during a panel for Smith College. Kaminer made a reasonable case by providing many examples from a different variety of colleges who have experienced a free speech debate. She also stated: “How did a verbal defense of free speech become tantamount to a hate crime and offensive words become the equivalent of physical assaults?” I couldn’t agree with Kaminer more. People need to toughen up and not take things so literally.  Offensive words are not equivalent to physical assaults.

“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.

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

Charles Lawrence evokes that racist speech should be regulated to avert defaming the minorities in “On Racist Speech” from the Chronicle of Higher Education. The article addresses that racial insults do not deserve to be under the First Amendment because “the perpetrator’s intention is to injure the victim” (Lawrence 2087). After all, the Supreme Court has asserted that if the perpetrator’s intention is to “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”, then they are not protected under the First Amendment (Lawrence 2086). The racist slurs on the university campus was one of the vexed topics since students should have “the right of an equal education in a safe environment” rather than being surrounded by verbal

Free speech shall not incite evil and hatred in this country. The First Amendment prevents the government from infringing upon our freedom of assembly and speech. “The disability is so complete that Congress is expressly forbidden to enact laws respecting an establishment of religion, or laws abridging the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the right to petition the government” (Bybee). As a whole, our founding fathers only had good intentions with regards to First Amendment rights in America.

In Carol Costello’s article “At Berkeley, don’t feed the provocateurs” she states that University of Cal. Berkeley is being use as a political platform for professional provocateurs to stir up trouble and cause clashing political views to riot and act out against each other. Part of me agrees with what she has to say because there are constant riots at Berkeley due to Conservatives being labeled as white supremacists. I do not understand why an extremely Liberal university keeps hosting staunch conservative speakers. Furthermore, having Milo Yiannopoulos come speak at Berkeley is just asking for trouble. After countless riots anyone would think that they would let the angered anti-fascists and fascists cool down. But, that is not the case

The Freedom of speech is very expansive filled with loop holes and with this comes many cases that have change the American history. The rights of free speech, free express for all such as gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability has help to encourage society development and helps to encourage equality for everyone. It is always bad intention to use the right of to fuel hate, prejudice and other crimes of violence. For example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case that challenged the speech of individual speech that was exhibit imminent lawless action or used words to incite or direct an action.

Free Speech is one of the founding statutes of America, and it is interesting to be the want to paint the use of it as hate mongering. The articles given are complementary in “Free Speech Fight Now About Smearing Right as Racists” they offer the argument that all these protesters are trying to do is paint the right as racists and then in the article from CNN they claim just that. Costello does condemn the violent acts of the protesters but seats the blame clearly on the opinions and platform of the speakers invited. Massive amounts of the mainstream media dedicate all their time to painting the right as racists as if that is the sole majority of their group. These protests at Berkeley just go forward in trying to silence those with disagreements

There is an argument said that by protecting racist hate speeches, we are protecting particularly the white supremacy doctrine, similarly to what happened in the history, which will result in perpetuate to racism in the United States. Lawrence (1995) has stated, “In the rush to protect the ‘speech’ of cross burners, champions of the First Amendment must not forget the voices of their victims” (p. 120). This is not only the case in the speech of cross burners in the past, but this is the case in all hate speeches and massages we have been listening and watching through the history and consider it as a free society and free speeches; where we became blind to see the victims of these speeches and the negative affect to the target groups. By saying victims; this is not only a refer to people who died or injured physically, but to people also who have been affected emotionally and humiliated through the past and will continue to be humiliated in the future if these attacks didn’t

That person sends an email indicating that he/she will make it his/her lifetime mission to eradicate Asians. The school campuses are trying to find ways in protecting those group of people from hate speech without risking the erosion of speech rights. According to the first amendment it states that there shouldn’t be any limit on freedom of speech but could this on going problem be an