The Oppression Of Freedom Of Speech In Schools

The nation's leftists, whether in academia or the news media tout themselves as advocates of free speech. Back in 1964, it was Mario Savio a campus leftist who led the Free Speech Movement at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, a movement that without question played a vital role in placing American universities center stage in the flow of political ideas no matter how controversial, unpatriotic and vulgar.

The United States is quite a diverse country, people coming from or born into different ethnic groups. Over the years, Americans used their freedom of speech to bring positive changes within society. However there has also been harsh criticism and disapproval that has caused protest with extreme actions. Knowing the history of America concerning minorities rights, there are most movements that were seen as hate speech. Most freedom of speech is protected including hate speech. Yet it has caused harm mentally and physically to the targets including causing violent actions.What is considered hate speech is speech that attacks a single person or group based on their race, ethnic origin, disability, sexual identity, or gender. While hate speech does bring psychological harm to its targets and to tolerate is not enough, putting restrictions towards hate speech could cause more problems within college campus and a social uproar.

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important parts of the First Amendment, and it applies to everyone-- even students. Every day, students come to school to learn about many things, including citizenship. In order to teach young people rights, they must have rights in the first place. Although students should have free speech rights, the school has a right to limit certain things that could hurt the students. In the past, cases have been brought to the Supreme Court involving student speech in school, and they have set the precedents used today. Today in schools, students have enough free speech rights, but their rights should include publishing in school newspapers.

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.

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 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.

Freedom of speech is more than just words, it is posters, petitions, rallies, protests, and more. This lets opinions be shared and spread to make a difference in the world. The problem is that in schools there is a limit on the amount of freedom of speech students can have. How are students supposed to feel like they have a voice when they are being told that they can only speak of certain topics? By what means could student be educated on their rights like the First Amendment if they cannot have full access to that right at all times? Students are brought together by freedom of speech, schools should not be stopping that. It is essential that freedom of speech in schools should not be limited because it gives students a voice, it educates them on their rights, and it brings students together.

Many pro-speech advocates argue that policies restricting hate speech are always overbroad which leads to a chilling effect in which people are afraid to say anything controversial in fear of punishment and thus, ideas are suppressed in the process. Nevertheless, in the case of hate speech, rights of students to a proper education, uninterrupted by intentional expressions of hate should easily surpass students and professors’ rights to complete free speech. Hate speech on campus causes psychological harm and emotional distress to those that it is directed towards and is a form of discrimination that strips its target of their dignity. Vulnerable minorities subjected to hate speech feel unwelcome, which disrupts their education and opportunities. Additionally, hate speech silences its victims rendering them powerless in comparison to the strength of the majority. This effect is in direct opposition of the ultimate goal of free speech. The objective of free speech is to have controversial speech answered with more speech by the opposing side; however, hate speech eliminates the opposing side from engaging in the countering speech response, thus the exchanging of ideas is disrupted. Furthermore, the dangers of hate speech are apparent when looking at countries comparable to the United States, such as Germany, England, and Canada, all of which have laws in place that make hate speech a punishable crime. If almost all other democratic countries fear the consequences of hate speech enough to compose laws proscribing it, then this type of harm should not be allowed on campuses which encompass young and vulnerable individuals. Overall, hate speech undermines the peace on campus, interferes with the educational environment of minorities, and is contradictory to the mission of free speech in that more speech is

Imagine being arrested for calling someone a mean name. The first amendment to the United States Constitution grants freedom of expression. Such liberties distinguish the United States from other nations who lack liberties for their people. However, plenty of people claim freedom of speech is abused by people to harass minorities with hate speech. Hate speech is a verbal attack on a person or group due to their ethnic background, race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability. Numerous people demand a ban on hate speech from college campuses. However, in elementary, middle and high school, we were taught to not ridicule other religions, races or sexualities. In college, we are all adults and should be able to carry ourselves accordingly. The campuses should not kick students out because they have different beliefs that are offensive. Even though it is not morally correct to offend or be disrespectful to a person by stripping them of their dignity, it is not illegal. Taking away a person’s voice strips his or her right to express themselves because they are forced to remain silent. Just

One of the most valued amendments written in the U.S. Constitution is the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans freedom of speech. Individuals view the restriction of this right to be “unamerican”. Unfortunately, over the years colleges and universities have experienced an increase of hate speech. Victims of this type of crime may suffer from emotional and psychological distress. Due to this, restrictions have been placed on the ability to speak freely (Garrett). An ongoing debate has been placed in the hands of many people regarding whether Americans should be entitled to speak in an expressive way or if schools should focus on the safety of their students (Darden). Colleges should restrict hateful speech on campus regardless of

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified. According to, In Our Defense: The Bill of Right in Action, the First Amendment stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Alderman and Kennedy, pg.21). Because of the First Amendment, hate speech, “no matter how offensive its content”, was “protected” under the laws (ACLZ). However, people are still demanding more. They want hate-related speech to be allowed on campuses –without knowing the effects and the damage it could do. Hate speech could bring people down, lower their confidences and their school performance, and in some case, school avoidance. The audiences of offensive speech on campuses are students. At these ages, their brains are still developing and are very sensitive. Hate speech could affect the way they think for their entire life, and in the worst case, it could result in violence. Hate speech should not be protected on college campuses.

It’s very common now to see colleges and universities adopt hate speech codes, while these restrictions may potentially make campuses feel safer, such censorship is unconstitutional and should not be allowed. When hate speech is brought up in court, as long as the act is not threatening or putting someone in danger, it has been found legal. Because the government takes a side when trying to ban viewpoint-based speech the supreme court has found such restriction unconstitutional. The only speech that the first amendment does not protect is incitement to violent, fighting words, or true threats, furthermore the supreme court has never said that hate speech is not

Colleges across the country have implemented free speech codes in their campuses knowing it violates the first amendment right. They go as far as quarantining the students to a free speech zone as if the student’s opinion or point of view is an infectious deadly virus. Standing in the free speech zone singles you out and allows other students to see you as a target allowing them to label you as a racist, homophobe, or any other derogatory label they can come up with. Some learning institutions have also created safe spaces to further restrict student’s first amendment rights while protecting other student’s emotions. This creates sensitivity based censorship where anything that seems hateful or hurtful gets ban, so this closed-minded attitude

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