Freedom Of Speech : Speech

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.

Many colleges have enacted speech codes in which students are governed in what they say so that they don’t offend their peers. However, according to an expert by Lukianoff and Haidt, “ It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking...Don't teach students what to think; teach them how to think.” Students must learn to stand up for themselves. Nevertheless college campuses are a place for learning, students should be able to hear criticism, take criticism and learn how to deal with it in a peaceful way. In workplaces, in society and in rooms where hate speech is being used, students should be able to stand by what they believe in and fight for their claim with confidence. Lukianoff and Haidt point out that “Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control.” Again, offenses will be thrown out there all around you, you just have to learn how to deal with it. But where do you draw the line and say enough is

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

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

“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.

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.

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.

For centuries Universities have been a place to freely voice your opinion and debate with others. These institutions have been relatively safe harbors for debating social issues and exercising the individual's civil rights. However, current students seem to be the exact opposite, and the constitutional principle of free speech seems under siege. “Colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from strong historical support for free speech, including the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus” (Eliott)

Nearly all colleges and universities have adopted some form of anti-discrimination/harassment policies. These policies are meant to ensure that no student will be discriminated against due to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability. Many universities have adopted more specific policies regarding “hate speech” which prohibits speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or an offensive educational environment towards minorities, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled. The problem with universities enforcing a strict speech code is that it is often a vague policy that in itself is discriminatory as it violates The First Amendment. The case of Omar Mahmood, a student at the University of Michigan who was disciplined for writing a satirical article, “Do the Left Thing” illustrates the problems with these types of policies.

The First Amendment declares free speech to all types of speech by all of its people. The issue arises in a college setting where “hate speech” does not fall under free speech and is therefore enforced with speech codes. The biggest controversy is determining what is considered hate speech and what is not. So when did it become the governments job to determine a student’s acceptance or disapproval of another individual(s) train of thought? Implying speech codes on a college campus only poses a threat to ones own freedom of expression and thought. Free speech in the form of hate speech should not be regulated on a college campus because it is often times understood differently by others, it also challenges our freedom of assertion and although

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

One of the most valued amendments written in the U.S. Constitution is the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans freedom of speech. Individuals view the restriction of this right to be “unamerican”. Unfortunately, over the years colleges and universities have experienced an increase of hate speech. Victims of this type of crime may suffer from emotional and psychological distress. Due to this, restrictions have been placed on the ability to speak freely (Garrett). An ongoing debate has been placed in the hands of many people regarding whether Americans should be entitled to speak in an expressive way or if schools should focus on the safety of their students (Darden). Colleges should restrict hateful speech on campus regardless of

Colleges across the country have implemented free speech codes in their campuses knowing it violates the first amendment right. They go as far as quarantining the students to a free speech zone as if the student’s opinion or point of view is an infectious deadly virus. Standing in the free speech zone singles you out and allows other students to see you as a target allowing them to label you as a racist, homophobe, or any other derogatory label they can come up with. Some learning institutions have also created safe spaces to further restrict student’s first amendment rights while protecting other student’s emotions. This creates sensitivity based censorship where anything that seems hateful or hurtful gets ban, so this closed-minded attitude