Sorry, College Kids, There's No Such Thing As Hate Speech

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

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.”

What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.

Even though hate speech can be damaging to the targeted victims, it still cannot be set to a standard or principle because it is hard to define what is and is not hate speech. Hate speech is so wide-ranging and vast, no limit can be set to regulate it. What some groups may consider to be hateful and demeaning, others groups deem to be their founding principles and beliefs. A study taken place at University of Colorado quotes, "Often, when hate speech prohibitions are in place, people engaged in serious intergroup conflicts simply refuse to talk at all, preventing constructive problem solving and allowing tensions to build." American Civil Liberties Union suggests the best way to counterattack hate speech is to not censor it, but to respond with more moral speech. ACLU goes by the principles that the rights of free speech are indivisible:

In the name of free speech, hate speech should not be tolerated. Hate speech has devastating effects on the people and communities it is targeted at. Left unchecked hate speech can lead to harmful and violent effects. Over the past few years, the effects of hate speech used on women, homosexuals, ethnic groups and religious minorities have become more and more apparent. Hate speech can be very divisive in many of the situations it is used, depending on who interprets the expression can vary how people react, due to hate speech, not being easy defend when it does not hurt that certain person or community. If left uncheck hate speech can develop into harmful narratives that remain. While hate speech is not against the law, some have begun

Opposition to all forms of hate speech laws are quite passionate. People who are adamant against hate speech laws affirm their beliefs through the First Amendment. Believing that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, no matter how terrible, these people go about calling others “snowflakes” just for protesting hate speech. Instead of actually understanding the harmful effects that have been proven by researchers they instead trivialize the effects (Neilsen 10-11). This type of resistive thinking is

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.

Just a couple of months ago white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville to protest the tearing down of the statue of Robert E Lee. The racism and hate they spread through their march is unquestionably disgusting and serves no purpose in our society today. This event has led to social media sites such as Twitter to crack down even harder in a plight they started over a year ago to silence hateful speech. While there are some occasional dissenters, the general population agrees with the opinion that this speech is awful in every sense. With that being said, censoring their right to free speech is a bit too rash. We can all agree that free speech is one of the most important rights we have, and with President Trump throwing around the term “fake news” at major news organizations, it is more important than ever to protect that freedom. The article “The case for restricting hate speech” by Laura Beth Nielsen of the Los Angeles Times gives an argument for why hate speech should be censored. While she provides valid points, with the absence of factual statistics, none of them are strong enough to support her thesis that hate speech should be banned. I believe that in almost every instance, hate speech should remain protected just as much as our right to free speech.

In the article, Sorry, College Kids, There's No Such Thing As Hate Speech by John Davidson, states that 'Fighting Words' and Incitement are not referred to as hate speech. I agree with Davidson because college is suppose to be about freedom of speech and students expressing themselves in their own way. I also find the the administrators to be very ignorant for thinking that arguments about bear arms, illegal immigration, etc is considered "hate speech" when it is just their own point of view on the situation. For example, when it was Halloween and certain schools didn't let students dress up because apparently dressing up as an Indian or Donald Trump can be considered offensive is outrageous. However, I believe that this situation starts in

Second, college students should be heard, supported and even refuted. When hate speech is allowed on campuses, students and faculty can state different problems that are taboo in real world. When the “hate” is out, students express their points of view and sometimes issues that are not being solved. For me, hate speech is a way that as college student we can be heard and different issues can be solved.

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).

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

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.

Hate speech, what is it? The definition of hate speech, according to Mari J. Matsuda, author of "Assaultive Speech and Academic Freedom, is "…(a word of group of words) of which is to wound and degrade by asserting the inherent inferiority of a group" (151). In my own words hate speech is a humiliation and demeaning slur of words specifically used to disgrace a person for their race, religion, or sexual habits. There is now a controversy if hate speech should be regulated on college campuses or not. I have read a few articles with the author being either for or against regulating hate speech. My opinion is that yes, we should regulate hate speech on college campuses.

There are good things to having the freedom of speech but because of freedom of speech we take advantage of it as much as we can. Because of freedom of speech it’s common to hear hate speech. To limit freedom of speech we can avoid more hate speech. It’s better to avoid hate speech so we don’t affect a person’s mental health, be harmful and divisive to communities, or endure hatred over many years.