Speech On Free 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.

With a wide variety of people on colleges campuses, it is almost impossible to please everybody; whether it comes to class times, bus schedules, or grading rules, somebody is upset. As well as these smaller issues, more controversial arguments come into play. One of these arguments is against free speech zones on college campuses. These zones restrict speech to a specific area on campus, however, still allowing any type of group to express their beliefs to anybody passing. Some claim these zones as unconstitutional because it restricts a student’s right to free speech. However, others view the zones as helpful in controlling protests and current tensions on campus. Open speech across campus is incredibly difficult to monitor because of the enormous size of current day campuses and the immense amount of different views. In the past, there have been situations relating to violent protesting and negative speech across campuses. Because of this, campuses have begun enforcing free speech zones in which students and faculty may verbally express their beliefs.

“Free speech” often has negative connotations because the negative outcomes are publicized more than the positive outcomes. ‘Free Speech’ is a time for individuals to express their beliefs and topic on an important issue. People chose to present themselves in a vast majority of ways such as, holding signs, making t-shirts, shouting, etc. People who chose to present themselves in disrupting ways such as, foul language, inappropriate attire are more likely to be noticed than another student that is holding a simple and respectful sign. Schmidt states, “Universities cannot censor or suppress speech, no matter how obnoxious in content, without violating their justification of existence” (2). There is no definition of what type of ‘free speech’ should be censored and not allowed. With that said, there should not be a limit on ‘free speech’

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

Freedom of speech is a fundamental American freedom and a human right, and there’s no place that this right should be more valued and protected than in colleges and universities. A college exists to educate and to advance a student 's knowledge. Colleges do so by acting as a “marketplace of ideas” where ideas compete. It is important to be able to compare your ideas with everyone else as it helps to open your mind to other people’s views and can give you a different perception on things. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukiankoff talked about how too many college students engage in “catastrophizing," which is in short, the overreaction to something. They also said that “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.”(Haidt) Many colleges have the belief that prohibiting freedom of speech will resolve such issues. But instead, colleges should take a different approach on the matter by teaching students how to properly utilize their Freedom of Speech which will help to resolve future conflicts and misunderstandings.

In the article “Speech Codes: Alive and Well at Colleges” by Harvey A. Silverglate and Greg Lukianoff the authors talk about how speech codes are still used in universities but not called speech codes. Silverglate goes on to speak how speech is restricted by way of creating “speech zones” and policies that are “artfully written” to conceal their intentions to limit public speaking. I found myself asking why we need to defend ourselves from expressing our viewpoints even if they are constitutionally protected by the first amendment.

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

One of the most landmark cases on free speech was Schenck v. United States in 1919 where Charles Schenck mailed letters to draftees of World War 1 stating that the draft was wrong and to “not submit to intimidation”. The court concluded that Schenck was not protected under the 1st amendment in this situation because it was an attempt interfere with the draft which is a criminal offense. More specifically, there has been many cases involving college speech in the 1st amendment. There has been times where college speech has been restricted through history and times where it has been encouraged. College is a place where student speech should be open but also respected. There are many famous court cases involving fan profanity, student clubs, the newspaper, on college campuses. One of the first college speech cases was Sweezy v New Hampshire where the court had to decide if the Attorney General of New Hampshire could prosecute an individual who refused to answer questions about a lecture he gave on a college campus. The court ruled in favor of Sweezy. College speech became an issue ever since that

To address the first question, Keller had created a political group, Friends of Liberty, in which the group would stage “ask-ins” at open meetings for other campus organizations. First, we must address the aspect of an open meeting; these campus organizations were providing all students with the opportunity for discussion in a public forum. Public for a are the most important avenue for employing the right to unabridged speech for all United State citizens. “‘to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,’ this aspect of traditional public for a is a virtue, not a vice.” McCullen v. Coakley (2014). This court has held that public for a are to not be regulated by the government, except in an extremely limited fashion, time-place-manner. There were no regulations for time, place, or manner by the university. Keller was fully within his rights, as a student of the university, to attend the

As a result, many members of the minority student body protested to the university that the act was sexist and racist. Consequently, Sigma Chi’s activities were restricted and sanctioned. However, the Sigma Chi Fraternity sued George Mason University for unlawful punishment which was a violation of Sigma Chi’s free speech rights because it is unlawful to punish speech simply because it offended someone. Agreeing with the fraternity, the court dismissed the punishment; after all, George Mason University did not have a hate speech code to base their decision on. This case set a criterion for universities, that in order to regulate hate speech, a code cannot punish protected speech, —including hate speech—must be very definite about what is prohibited or punishable, and cannot base punishment on content of

People have to think twice before saying anything for fear that they are faced with charges of aggression or insensitivity. While the press looks at this as a rebirth of political correctness which sought to restrict hate speech amongst the marginalized groups to encourage inclusivity, others argue it’s more concerned with emotional well-being of the students and that it seeks to protect students from mental harm that can be caused by offensive words, ideas or actions. All in the purpose of making campuses a safe place for students.

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)

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion regarding free speech on college campuses. Our first amendment gives us the right of Free Speech but many groups retain the ability to censor it within their own organisation, such as in the workplace and in both public and private lower education. I believe that the ability should be extended to colleges and universities (both public and private). Students should have the right to be at school while feeling physically safe. An example of this right being violated because of someone else’s “free speech” was last spring at American University in which bananas were strung up on nooses around campus with AKA (a historically-black sorority) labeled on them the day after AU’s first black female student

Have you imaged yourself studying in a college requiring a pre-warning at the beginning of a statement or material to alert that it may contain some sensitive contents making you uncomfortable? Have you believed that your college is striving to create a safe space to protect you from words you do not like while you are preparing to face the unforeseeable challenges of the workplace? Our society is moving forward; however, our college education seems to move backward. The new generation born after the 80’s is overprotected by their parents, seemingly making them become vulnerable to the criticism from the surroundings. Like the parents, many colleges decide to limit free speech to create a place “protecting students from hurt feelings” (Stack). Just as Lukianoff and Haidt explain in the debate, it is necessary to shield students from statements causing them emotional and psychological harm on campus. It means that turning “campuses into ‘safe spaces’ where young adults are shielded from sensitive words and ideas,” and “creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse,” according to Lukianoff and Haidt. Ultimately, in the name of making students feel comfortable and safe on campuses, restrictions on speech make students unable to have a free conversation because being afraid of the lawsuit, deal with anything harmful and offensive to their beliefs,