The Right To Freedom Of 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.

that student or teachers may not use schools as a platform to exercise free speech and in the case

Colleges and universities are places of higher education and learning. Part of this learning comes from listening and understanding opposite views from your own. Positively, these zones have allowed students to avoid any ideas they may not want to hear; however, avoidance is not the way around life. Another positive outcome of free speech on campuses is that students are able to bind together

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

“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

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

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.

First of all, no-platforming not only limits speech, it also interferes with the freedom of association. We have seen many instances where no-platforming was not only based on what someone was going to speak about but was tied to either beliefs or private associations. Damien Shannon uses the example of Arthur Redford, a mini-bus driver who was fired due to his affiliation with the British National Party (BNP). The BNP is one of the six groups banned from speaking at many universities in the UK for their fascist views. However, a person affiliated with the BNP that wanted to speak about something unrelated to these views would still be no-platformed based on their association with the BNP. This infringes on an individual’s freedom of association. Another argument against no-platforming is that it is counterproductive. By denying people whose views we disagree with a platform, we are effectively ensuring that these ideas are not debated, and if they are wrong, defeated. Moreover, the justification for denying a platform is incoherent. When universities were first no-platforming it was on the grounds of promoting racial hatred or inciting violence. However now there is no definitive justification for someone or a certain group to be no-platformed. Allowing the ability of people to both introduce new ideas, concepts or alternatively provide reasonable debate to

What people fail to realize is that this world consist if different beliefs. So instead of trying to stop people from talking about their belief or idea; students should be encouraged to stand up for what they believe in. In the real life world it’s not possible to cancel certain ideas that may cause emotional distress to a person. So if campuses allow students to be in control of removing subjects or ideas, what are they teaching the students? I’ll tell you, they are teaching the

A platform given to individuals with harmful beliefs or opinions allows them to gain attraction, as a platform cannot be considered a right, but rather a privilege, given to those who are worthy. The act of giving an individual a platform in itself represents an elevation of status, implying there is value to what is being heard, and therefore must be valuable. Due to these numerous different valid points, both supporters and opposition of no-platforming in post-secondary institutions are correct in their own mannerisms.

which is used to prevent certain individuals or identity groups from having the platform to speak

Supporters of the current practice of no-platforming argue that it is an attempt to balance the power structures at play in society. No-platforming provides oppressed and marginalized groups a greater say in the values that we, as a society, would like to legitimize. Oftentimes, the speakers being no-platformed have the power to express their harmful ideas through various outlets, but the students protesting them do not have the social capital needed to express their contrasting beliefs.

In the video: To speak or not to speak: Should universities practice ‘no-platforming’ there were two very convincing sides of the debate. On the first side of the debate supporting No platforming the question they were asking is if it was truly legitimate for activists to demand for no platforming. They believe that free speech is trapped in a web of power relations. Another main point to the pro no-platforming side of the debate is that the freedom of speech does not give you the right to a platform nor the right to force people to listen to your opinion/ ideas or to be listened to by others. In contrast the other side of the