The Pros And Cons Of Free Speech

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

Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well

On January 13th, 2017, Chancellor Ralph Hexter of UC Davis emailed students in response to Martin Shkreli and Milo Yiannopoulos not being allowed speak at a campus event due to heated protests. The controversial Yiannopoulos is a open critic of many social justice movements, like feminism and Black Lives Matter. He’s specifically said during his events at his tour that muslims are rapists, publically yelled at a muslim for wearing a hijab, and promotes Blue Lives Matter. ('I Just Want to Burn It down') Additionally, Shkreli is a businessman who is now a convicted felon. So in response, many students were outraged and deeply upset by this organized event. In the email the Chancellor quoted the ACLU, explaining that we “can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.” However this will cause violence and make many feel patronized by the words spurred out by public speakers, like Yiannopoulos and Shrekli. Even though inviting people of different views seems like unifying people from all backgrounds, when people are content with their hatred and speak them out openly, it causes more complication. The opposite side wants to cover their ears and find the nearest exit. To be realistic, any young student won’t be welcoming with open arms to close minded speakers, especially if it seems as the main thing they desire is to get a rise out of you. The most efficient way to unify people is being respectful

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

Notwithstanding Chris Cantwell’s speech, “Free Speech Week” must be permitted to proceed as UC Berkeley, a government institution, demonstrates a commitment to the First Amendment. While allowing this event may be considered by many displeasing, it is in line with both the campus’s designation as a limited public forum, and the ruling from Supreme Court case Lamb’s Chapel

Universities that have been trying to quash free speech have encountered some court reversals of their attempts. But campus leftists have not given up. The newest university gambit to limit speech mirrors the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, (creating a hostile environment) or they attempt to base their speech code on the "fighting words" doctrine enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

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.

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)

Just to begin with my opinion, the Facebook postings, which threatened the defendant's spouse and others, were actual threats, not safeguarded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, conviction does not need proof that the defendant subjectively wanted the statement to be threats. Also, a brief summary of the case, Anthony Elonis' wife left him and Elonis afterwards lost his job for posting improper messages concerning his colleague on Facebook (Ferrilli et al., 2014). Afterwards, he also started posting overly violent messages about his wife, local elementary schools and also the police force, which led him to eventually being arrested and charged with conveying in interstate commerce communications with a threat to hurt the person of another (Hananel, 2014).

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.

Freedom of speech had a link of positive impacts to the world. One positive impact would be the citizens questioning the government about their personal interests and opinion on free speech. This means that before freedom of speech was questioned, many citizens did not have a voice. The government was not concerned with increasing individual’s voices based on personal opinions and beliefs. When citizens began to question the government, the government had not one motive behind not giving individuals the opportunity to speak freely. This arouse more questioning and thoughts amongst citizens and government officials. The United States implemented the first amendment which is applied to all state and local governments. No one is restricted or

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.