The Importance Of 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.

The dissent argues that there should be a limit on expression in school to allow students

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

Yet in modern America, we see these rights that we were granted to us such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness altered in ways that outrage us, or slip right through the cracks. Today, Americans are finding it harder and harder to move up and down the class system that we have, or our ability to have social mobility. People who are poor end up stay poor, and rich 1% end up getting richer. This is slander to our right to pursuit happiness, even if it is subtle. Another significant example of our rights being altered would be our right to freedom, which wasn’t full of justice to begin with.

Lukianoff and Haidt explain that the new trend in censoring what is said and taught in classrooms are slowly institutionalizing how professors and administrators

Censorship impacts how many people live their lives and what they are allowed to witness; Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley write about the freedom of expression and the abolishment of censorship for college students and universities in “Resorting Free Speech on Campus.” Stone and Creeley effectively use a personal observation, a quote from a prominent individual, the bias technique, and irony in order to convince readers to take their side and agree to abort censorship for college students.

This essay argues that universities have gone too far in suppressing unpopular, even distasteful, speech that is accorded the highest degree of First Amendment protection and that is vital to facilitating the robust exchange of ideas and viewpoints among students and faculty. As discussed below, university administrators have censored faculty members and, in some cases, adopted policies that discourage core political speech, discriminate against speech on the basis of its content, and deter faculty and students from expressing controversial views.

On that note, we must ask ourselves this: how free is freedom of speech allowed to be? Free enough to voice an opinion but restraining

Outside class, students are forced into consciousness-raising exercises that heighten tensions and bolster radical pressure groups (Stearn 2). For example, at Brown University, an organized coalition of

Before writing this letter I have researched the efficacy of such a medium in order to make an impact, I am not surprised to learn that this may hinder more than help. This is not to vilify those involved or even take sides in an issue that honestly affects currently half a million people, but in the long run may impact millions. This is a letter to put a back story to those forgotten by the issue at hand, the student affected by a five week strike of Ontario Colleges. I am 25 years old, have been in post secondary prior to my latest education, and I have never encountered anything like this. People are seeing only what the media covers and so I need them to see the reality of how little control us

In the late sixties and early seventies, the university was a cornerstone of social action. College students seemed lit up with the passion to create change and reform the way things were in society. Across the nation, there was a liveliness on college campuses, an energy of relentless revolution which that generation is still revered for. On the modern-day college campus, there are no grand riots, protests, or strikes. It is hard to tell if this is an indication of social apathy or if young people have found new outlets for social activism. A structural functionalist would conclude that student activism is still a major component of the university, and that there are simply new ways in which students can demonstrate activism. A

Opponents of no-platforming believe it is not a legitimate tool of activism, as it is chiefly used to block trivial cases of discomfort. They believe that students should not have the right to adjudicate on who is allowed a platform in a university. If individual students and student-run groups are able to no-platform anybody they feel is harmful, universities will cease to be open areas to exchange ideas, causing gridlock and an endless cycle of no-platforming. Instead, they believe that the best way to expose harmful views is through public

The video presents the issue by separating the students into groups of three, each side presenting separate views on the issue of free speech and allowing for equal time to introduce their arguments and counter the opposition. On one side of the debate, they believe no-platforming is a legitimate tool of activism because not only does it avoid harm to those who are oppressed, it enables them to choose what values society deems as legitimate through democratic intervention in the power structures. Germaine Greer is used to support the argument because of her transphobic speech at a

The voices, opinions, and identities of the increasing number of diverse students on university campuses must be represented. No-platforming effectively denies a public platform for a speaker to broadcast views that are discriminatory, which could negatively impact the lives of students. The policy of no-platforming allows for a safe-space on campus where homophobic, sexist or racist views are at a minimum. A recent case in no-platforming is Germaine Greer, a writer who used her platform at Cardiff University to spread her hateful transphobic views. Although the campaign to no-platform Greer failed, her future lecture required the use of armed guards as a form of protection from protestors. Allowing such free speech to continue is harmful towards the transsexual community and takes away their rights which creates an inequality in power. The idea of free speech can only free to a certain extent in a democratic

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.