Freedom Speech

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.”

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

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.

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.

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

The landmark case speaks “directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of defeatism affected the hearts and minds” of the students (Lawrence 2088). The message still emerges in today’s society through the racial comments on minorities. The harassment and demeaning towards the minority students because of their difference in culture and race is inhumane. They deserve to be able to attend school without fearing that they might be a perpetrator's next target of racially assaulting speech. The racial slurs and “harassment often causes deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear” that filters through the victim's life (Lawrence 2088). People need to acknowledge that “there is real harm inflicted by racist speech and that this harm is far from trivial” (Lawrence 2087). By accepting Lawrence’s argument that the regulation of racist speech can alleviate the damages done to minorities, there will be a positive outcome regarding the mental health of minorities. The benefits of regulating assaultive racist speech is the diminishment of negative psychological thoughts of the minorities. Racist speech causes the minorities to think negatively about themselves since the perpetrator emphasizes that being a minority means that they are inferior, which increases the chance of the minorities clouding themselves with

“The government has jurisdiction over when, where, and how people exercise their free speech rights. But, government cannot control content” (ACLU). For instance, when “a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) group from South Carolina, the Loyal White Knights, protested the removal of a statue [Confederate General Robert E. Lee] in Charlottesville, they were issued a permit to peacefully protest” (Difazio). Many Loyal White Knights wore robes resembling wizards and even held high confederate flags. Do they have free speech rights? Yes, but the government made a grave mistake by granting an assembly permit to one of America’s most infamous and oldest hate groups. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 1 once said, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love” (Washington State University). Although the KKK group appeared to have no ill intentions, their means of

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 his essay, “The Campus: An Island of Repression in a Sea of Freedom”, Chester Finn details the growing movement for political correctness at the collegiate level. He quotes the regents of Massachusetts, “There must be unity and cohesion in the diversity which we seek to achieve, thereby creating an atmosphere of pluralism” (Finn 58). However, that pluralism does not parallel the First Amendment. In this situation, the issue is not freedom of expression, but the steps taken to limit it. An article written by Maegan Vazquez for Fox News details a stipulation to the speech code at Indiana University Southeast. The code states that students are restricted to expressing their opinions in “free speech” zones. However, Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, fires back “It's not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits ‘any act of ridicule...or embarrassment,’ and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive." He sums up the damage that this situation is causing with his final statement. “You're teaching [college students] that they're not equipped to live in a free society” (Vazquez). Therefore, those parents who worry about the indoctrination of their college-age children are justified in that fear as this problem is widespread and

Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to

Recently in 2015 the topic on college campuses is racially offensive talk. When I first heard about this I was shocked. I never thought of a college ever being a place where you’d find students talking in a racist way. To me school has always been a place where I didn’t think anyone had to worry about hateful or racially offensive speech. But to my surprise many campuses around the United States have this problem and they need to find a way to solve it.

In this day and age, we are subject to many instances of harmful hate speech, even if it is not directed toward us. The current legal standing in the United States state that the government cannot limit speech on the basis of its content. Thus, speech cannot be censored because its message is racist, religious, sexist, or inspirational. While the prevailing attitude in the American judicial

The relationship of free speech to that of hate groups, and the protection of hate speech under the first Amendment is a much debated topic of ethics and civil liberties. Although affirmative action protects against discrimination of race, religion, gender, and disabilities, it only protects from discrimination in educational institutions and employment. So how can a society that claims to protect civil rights allow the production of speech that opposes those same fundamental rights?, because this form of speech, although hateful in nature, are ideas, and “hateful ideas are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas” (McGough, 2015).

University of California, Berkeley is undergoing a political movement unlike any other. The issue? Free speech. Protesters from both sides of the the political spectrum are outraged. leftists claiming that free speech is “being used as a cover for spreading hate in America”, that people like the infamous Yiannopoulos (a conservative political commentator known for making offensive statements and supporting “white supremacy, transphobia, and misogyny”) are doing harm with their first amendment right, while conservatives are claiming free speech is being threatened by the liberals. Are these demonstrators really challenging the definition of the phrase ‘freedom of speech’? No. The phrase ‘freedom of speech’ has not changed in definition, but

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.