Slurs Should Be Banned

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

In the debate over the censoring of hate speech, the opponents conclude that hate speech should be censored for peoples ' dignity. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that hate speeches should not be censored on college campuses because it takes away students academic freedom. In this essay, I will conclude that we should not censor hate speech on college campuses. The debate between protection of offensive expression and protection of dignity has been an ongoing issue.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

In countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

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.

Opposers to limitations on the First Amendment might say that we should not silence the people who have differing opinions than us, but we should challenge them. We should have the right to an open discussion where people can have whatever opinion they want as long as it follows the current guidelines of the First Amendment. The First Amendment relies on counter speech in hopes that “good will overpower the bad.”

Centuries ago in American society, individuals were not granted the free will to act and speak freely. First Amendment rights allowed citizens to do so. On a historical outlook, the oppressed fought for the rights of various groups in the United States. Although laws and situations evolve, groups in America continue to face inequality and issues with freedom of speech. There is room for further improvement; freedom for all citizens needs to be fulfilled. The impression of being free is what gives the United States the ideology of being a part of a democracy. Recent events have revealed issues with freedom of speech and questioning about what kinds of speech is protected. In order to close the gap in

Our nation has entered a period where it is becoming increasingly more acceptable to allow censorship for the sake of people’s feelings. This new idea that nothing should be said to cause offense, or distress, to another person is becoming as widespread as to even enter the classrooms of some universities, which now limit what can be discussed (Lukianoff and Haidt, 1). These hypersensitive Americans are beginning to flood into our nation with the belief that we should all care about how people feel about a certain topic. However, the fortunate truth is that we do not and will never care about anyone else’s sensitivity to a topic so much that we limit how express ourselves. The American constitution purposely gives Americans the freedom of speech and expression so that we may cause offense to other people, for the sake of having everyone’s opinions voiced.

Free speech is a fundamental piece of American society; however, it has become a very controversial idea. In recent years several “free-speech” protests have risen, many breaking out in violence. With all the arguments about free speech erupting in America it is important to keep in mind that the first amendment is very broad, and has very few and very specific limitations; thus, very seldom does an individual person or group have the right to stop another from speaking.

In “Free Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance” (Medium, February 6, 2017), Julia Serano addresses the flaws in activists’ Richard Spencer’s and Milo Yiannopoulos’ actions against freedom of speech, as well as the flaws in free speech absolutism. The author explains how free speech absolutism cannot fully be achieved because of the laws that protect our privacy, and how free speech absolutism can only make matters worse. Because there are no laws against Milo Yiannopoulos campaigning for actor/comedian Leslie Jones to delete her personal website, people are allowed to use their freedom of speech to take away that same right from others. Serano explains how she was scared to express herself as transgender during her childhood because she witnessed people being harassed for their identity. The author calls this the paradox of free speech. Another paradox she highlights is the paradox of tolerance. If those who are tolerant do not defend against the intolerant, then the tolerant will one day disappear. Serano believes everyone should be a moderator. People who believe in an open and positive, free speaking society should collectively stand up against those that are intolerant to opposing ideologies, and possibly even incarcerate those who cannot present reason for their beliefs. This, however, is where the line must be drawn. Serano is wrong to believe that free speech absolutism will cause intolerance of fester and one day erupt, and that the minority should be treated like

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

In classrooms around our country, there is an increasing debate among teachers on one question: Should racial slurs be censored? Teachers can be torn between teaching good literature and the fear of offending students, especially when racial slurs are being used. However, it's important to take note of why this language is being used and why it shouldn't be censored.

But I believe this thick skin argument ignores that actual harm in hate speech. By allowing individuals to spew hate it reduces the dignity of the group being targeting. Also by the government allowing the printing of hateful messages it gives a certain amount of credence to the hateful speech itself. The typical view of hate speech laws is that it prevents people from speaking. However, I believe that it is the printed word that these laws would target. The proliferation of these messages not only reduce safety of these groups by encouraging violence and discrimination, but make individuals feel as though this hate is more prevalent than it actually it is. The purpose of this legislation would be to enshrine the belief that all people in these groups are equal citizens (61). I would also argue that nations with these hate speech regulations have not devolved into this massive government censorship that people claim that it will. In fact, one of the government’s top priorities is to preserve the dignity of its citizens. As Americans you often place liberty above dignity, but the amount of liberty one would lose in this situation would be minimal. But the protection of dignity would be much greater. So when asked if you can protect the aggrieved and maintain the market place of ideas I say yes. But I also add a caveat which is identity politics I believe like many on this panel today is dangerous (133). The

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.