Freedom Of Speech : Sacred Rights And The Freedom Of 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.

The article “On Racist Speech” by Charles R. Lawrence III discusses the issue of free speech and its involvement in racism, where the boundaries are not very well established between free speech and hate speech. Lawrence introduces the conflict found on university campuses, where the First Amendment is pushed to its limits with “face-to-face insults, catcalls, or other assaultive speech.” Lawrence also discusses the use of free speech as an outlet for the grievances of minorities, writing that “Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our democratic system.”

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

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

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.

Notwithstanding Chris Cantwell’s speech, “Free Speech Week” must be permitted to proceed as UC Berkeley, a government institution, demonstrates a commitment to the First Amendment. While allowing this event may be considered by many displeasing, it is in line with both the campus’s designation as a limited public forum, and the ruling from Supreme Court case Lamb’s Chapel

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

Harvey A. Silvergate stated in his article, “Muzziling Free Speech”, that “Our entire Country is a free speech zone, and that our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.” Free speech, in the form of hate speech, should be not regulated on American college campuses. Should hate speech be discouraged? Of course! However, developing policies that limit hate speech runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. The University of California System’s response to banning hate speech, speech codes in universities, law cases Doe v. University of Michigan and Sigma Chi Fraternity v George Mason University, and the view points of law professor Greg Margarian, proves why we should protect hate speech, even though it may seem wrong.

In the past couple of decades till now, there have been countless numbers of hate speech cases on college campuses across the country. Due to hate speech taking on many forms such as written, spoken, and symbolic, the number of incidents have skyrocketed. While many colleges have attempted to regulate hate speech on campus, other colleges have found that they have limited too much speech and that their regulations are starting to go against the first amendment. Three incidents of hate speech on college campuses in the years 1993-1995 occurred in the college campuses of Penn, UCR, and Caltech respectively.

All around the country, colleges and universities are increasingly punishing or censoring students who engage in offensive speech. Concerns indicate that a failure to act will lead to liability under federal anti-discrimination law. In many instances, the possibility of liability is weak or non-existent. “Except in the most extreme circumstances, schools are not required to expel students for their speech in order to avoid liability.” Instead, schools are punishing students for their demonstrations of free speech if it opposes the “safe space” and inclusive environment that colleges and Universities have been trying to promote. (Papandrea)

Hate crimes are an epidemic that plagues college campuses across the United States. Often, the instigators of hate crimes hide behind their rights allotted to them in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, this argument has actually been found to be a valid one in the eyes of many court systems. The policies put in place by institutions to prevent hate crimes, actually have been found to encourage them. These policies have been found to be a tricky slope for universities. At what point are Constitutional Rights being infringed upon? At what point does one go in order to protect others and encourage inclusion and unity? The surge and reduction in hate crimes on college campuses can often be traced back

Many pro-speech advocates argue that policies restricting hate speech are always overbroad which leads to a chilling effect in which people are afraid to say anything controversial in fear of punishment and thus, ideas are suppressed in the process. Nevertheless, in the case of hate speech, rights of students to a proper education, uninterrupted by intentional expressions of hate should easily surpass students and professors’ rights to complete free speech. Hate speech on campus causes psychological harm and emotional distress to those that it is directed towards and is a form of discrimination that strips its target of their dignity. Vulnerable minorities subjected to hate speech feel unwelcome, which disrupts their education and opportunities. Additionally, hate speech silences its victims rendering them powerless in comparison to the strength of the majority. This effect is in direct opposition of the ultimate goal of free speech. The objective of free speech is to have controversial speech answered with more speech by the opposing side; however, hate speech eliminates the opposing side from engaging in the countering speech response, thus the exchanging of ideas is disrupted. Furthermore, the dangers of hate speech are apparent when looking at countries comparable to the United States, such as Germany, England, and Canada, all of which have laws in place that make hate speech a punishable crime. If almost all other democratic countries fear the consequences of hate speech enough to compose laws proscribing it, then this type of harm should not be allowed on campuses which encompass young and vulnerable individuals. Overall, hate speech undermines the peace on campus, interferes with the educational environment of minorities, and is contradictory to the mission of free speech in that more speech is

Imagine being arrested for calling someone a mean name. The first amendment to the United States Constitution grants freedom of expression. Such liberties distinguish the United States from other nations who lack liberties for their people. However, plenty of people claim freedom of speech is abused by people to harass minorities with hate speech. Hate speech is a verbal attack on a person or group due to their ethnic background, race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability. Numerous people demand a ban on hate speech from college campuses. However, in elementary, middle and high school, we were taught to not ridicule other religions, races or sexualities. In college, we are all adults and should be able to carry ourselves accordingly. The campuses should not kick students out because they have different beliefs that are offensive. Even though it is not morally correct to offend or be disrespectful to a person by stripping them of their dignity, it is not illegal. Taking away a person’s voice strips his or her right to express themselves because they are forced to remain silent. Just

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.