Free Speech Persuasive Speech

In order to uphold the integrity of our democracy, constitution and higher education standards, there must be an effort to preserve free speech on college campuses. However, in equal measure as illustrated in the First Amendment, students should also be protected from hate speech and provided an equal chance of receiving a safe education. Perhaps it is beneficial to also consider however, that a ‘safe’ education should not be misinterpreted as an entirely un-offensive one. In order to assist in the political discussion and recommended courses of action regarding free speech on college campus, political philosophers’ John Stuart Mill and John Rawls texts’ will be referred to and analyzed in this essay.

“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

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

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.

From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent first amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us.

As American people, we know that we are entitled to certain rights according to the constitution; one of which is freedom of speech. In Civility and Its Discontents, Leslie Epstein explores the limits and contradictions of this much cherished right when considering whether he would expel a student who wrote racial slurs in the dorm rooms of a University if it was up to him. He discusses this situation and topics that stem from it in an analytical yet somewhat emotionally involved tone and makes the reader reflect on the wide range of information presented about the issues of political correctness, freedom of speech, expulsion, and racism.

Recently the Ohio State University refused to rent campus space to white nationalist Richard Spencer so he could speak. While this is understandable considering the message that Spencer has been known to preach, the Ohio State University has been accused of denying Richard Spencer his first amendment right. An attorney for Ohio State told Spencer that while the University valued freedom of speech, the speach would cause a serious threat to public safety. Spencer’s response was a lawsuit against Ohio State University. Spencer had sued several other schools in the past as they wouldn’t allow him to speak and it appears that he has now sued Ohio State.

Envision ambulating down the street and then out of the blue someone shouts obscenities predicated on the way people look or because of what they affiliate with. Incidents involving animosity happen everyday, and most are looked at as daily occurrences. With the current state of hate speech laws, there is nothing that could be done to put culpability on the instigator. Hate has a strong connection to United States history. Slaves were a result of being hateful to those who were different, and Jim Crow laws were also a consequence of this hatred. As much time has passed since then, America has become more progressive, although there are still people who are hateful of others for they way they are. Hate speech laws are necessary in the United States and should be passed because passing them would create and foster a more tolerant society, help to decrease the negative risk associated with them, and prevent violent acts of hate which tend to be preceded by hate speech.

“Defending the Right to be Offensive” is an article from the Globe and Mail archives. It summarizes the conflict between a group of Trent professors and the general belief that the environment at an university should be peaceful. The professors are protesting against the zero tolerance of harassment and discrimination policy, which appears to be absurd in the beginning. However, the author argues that the professors are “true revolutionaries”, and his thesis is in favour of the Trent faculty, therefore defending the right to be offensive.

The delegates filled Independence Hall with raucous applause. The voiceover of a Fox New pundit began narrating the scene.

In the current political environment, there is a growing divide between liberals and conservatives. Across the nation, there have been frequent protest against conservative organizations and speakers on college campuses. Earlier this year, the UCSB Student Senate voted to allocate $5,000 to a UCSB College Republicans’ hosted event (Brugger 2017). This event would host Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator. The approval of the event led to protests that argued that the conservative commentator incited violence and hateful speech. As a UCSB student, I got to hear the complaints that were made against the hosting of Shapiro.

Although there is no punishment by the government due to the protection of the first amendment Lovett brings up the idea that “the personal, financial, and social costs of saying the unsayable are prohibitively high”(Lovett 31-32), bringing up the point that if a controversial topic is brought up there are almost always negative consequences to come with the discussion. He uses himself as an example in the article saying that most of the time people do not care what he has to say, but because sometimes things he does say create controversy, that it holds him back in his writing or speeches.

The right to free speech 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. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.