Free Speech Week Persuasive Speech

With a wide variety of people on colleges campuses, it is almost impossible to please everybody; whether it comes to class times, bus schedules, or grading rules, somebody is upset. As well as these smaller issues, more controversial arguments come into play. One of these arguments is against free speech zones on college campuses. These zones restrict speech to a specific area on campus, however, still allowing any type of group to express their beliefs to anybody passing. Some claim these zones as unconstitutional because it restricts a student’s right to free speech. However, others view the zones as helpful in controlling protests and current tensions on campus. Open speech across campus is incredibly difficult to monitor because of the enormous size of current day campuses and the immense amount of different views. In the past, there have been situations relating to violent protesting and negative speech across campuses. Because of this, campuses have begun enforcing free speech zones in which students and faculty may verbally express their beliefs.

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

“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

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

Lawrence sheds light upon the very turbulent issue of the First Amendment right to the Freedom of speech in contrast to the inequality caused by its misuse through racially bias speech. The author states that the University officials should endorse some sort policy that will protect the rights of those who are victimized by this “racial nuisance,” while at the same time not censoring our constitutional right of free speech, “I am troubled by the way the debates has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response universities attempts to regulate harassing speech” (Lawrence，65). Continually, Lawrence defines the set of ideals that the First Amendment was based on, particularly; equality. He goes on to show the audience that this very balance is

Derek Bok argues that American dedication to democracy is embodied in the Frist Amendment and that the freedoms granted in this Amendment are the building blocks of dialogues that contribute to cohesive communities born out of differences. The problem, however, according to Bok, is the difficulty of balancing the protection of these freedoms on campuses and universities where reasoned expression of diverse ideas is encouraged. Bok offers the suggestion that rather than attempt to stifle expression by imposing penalties for what might be considered offensive speech, “speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their action on others” (69). While this suggestion might imply a reasoned and

There are two questions that this court must answer today; First, does Keller’s speech have First Amendment protections? Second, does the University of California, Delphi have the ability to restrict such speech? Keller argues that the university violated his First Amendment rights by attempting to restrict his expression of disfavored views. The university contends that Keller’s actions were disruptive to the learning environment, and thus suspended; not violating his rights to free speech.

I figured I's stop fill up a 5 gallon has tank and throw it on the fire, then kick back and enjoy the Liberal Democrats and the God fearing Baptist Republicans call each other names while pointing their finger.

In the article, A.J. Willingham examines the most cherished civil liberty; freedom of speech. A variety of examples are used to illustrate which types of speech are protected by the constitution and which types are not. It’s surprising that hate speech and symbolic speech, such as the KKK burning crosses on private property is deemed constitutional, yet Ann Coulter was banned from delivering a speech at UC Berkley. Although, Berkley officials cited protests and safety/security concerns as a reason to cancel Coulter’s speech one can surmise that Berkley officials are providing Democrats with a platform while preventing Republican’s from having a voice. Therefore, with regards to the first example, I would argue that Berkley officials are

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.

Last week, students who attend UW made headlines for the creation of a violent video beheading a cop to promote their clothing line. The argument is not about director Eneale Pickett’s ideology; it is whether or not he had a right—free speech—to do so.

Whenever a top level executive in a company or in any position of power does something or says something that might impinge on free speech it is concerning, when that person is the President of the United States it is especially scary. Free speech is one of the most confusing rights and what is under the umbrella of free speech is always changing. Starting with the players, the question of whether or not they have right to protest is simple. The right to protest is protected under the first amendment just like free speech. There are similar cases that prove that the way the players are protesting is legal. For example, the case of the West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943 guarantees the right not to speak, more specifically the right not to salute the flag, which is similar to what the players who are protesting are doing (“What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts). Therefore, what the players are doing according to the law is perfectly legal. The President’s remarks on the issue while they do tread on a dangerous path are also perfectly legal as his statements are also protected by the first amendment. Therefore, strictly according to the law both parties, the President and the players, are protected by the first amendment. The President is not legally speaking impinging the player’s free speech as the president is not stopping them merely voicing his displeasure. Whether or not the President’s statements were ethical is slightly more complex.

We live in a controversial world at a controversial time. Most people would probably find it difficult to do anything dealing with the media, from watching a local news channel to scrolling through their Twitter feed, without running into various politicized arguments. From gun control legislation to immigration policy, there seems to be an issue to be found in every aspect of life. However, what these all have in common is that people in the United States are generally free to argue about them. We can engage in casual conversation, debate, and even protests to that give voice to our opinions on issues.

To what extent should one’s free speech be denied? In recent months, University of Toronto professor, Jordan Peterson’s right to free speech was put into question when asked to speak at another university. His controversial views, including his refusal to use genderless pronouns, drew a lot of attention and disapproval by many and, as a result, generated a great deal of hate towards him. The debate of whether or not he should have been given a platform at McMaster university was highly debated following the protests at Peterson’s event. No-platforming is a tool of activism that prevents someone from spreading their ideas through an event or social platform. In the video, ‘To speak or not to speak: should universities practice “no-platforming”’, six students provide a professional debate on the issue of no-platforming, as the opposing sides of the argument attempt to justify their viewpoints.

The idea of human rights has been altered and been highly debated in the United States. Often our citizens, and even our own representatives, are stuck arguing over hot-button topics such as new gun control laws, access to universal healthcare in poverty-stricken communities, and even free speech, especially that of a controversial nature. The ambiguity of what our founding fathers believed our inalienable human rights as citizens under the United States constitution should be today is closely tied with the structure and disparities between social class lines. Currently, our government places more focus on the lower side of the socioeconomic class structure. Just recently, free speech on college campuses has become a hot topic of debate, sparking the political turmoil of maintaining free speech as a right for all citizens, and perhaps even pushing through new precautions to protect it.