In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into …show more content…
Instead, Bok suggests that we address the problem by communicating with those who are causing these disturbances and understand . Also in the essay, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Hate”, Christopher Hitchens explains why banning those hate speeches may be an unwise decision for society as a whole as freedom of speech does sometimes prevent the tyranny of majority from happening. While the essay, “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet”, Amanda Hess makes for the argument that the internet have become a new and terrifying way for people to bully women who uses it. The last article, “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech,” Sean McElwee argues that censoring is required to help protect the minorities and to foster a better society. Freedom of expression should not be limited for limiting speech does not help solve the root problem and it would be near impossible for any person to regulate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say without having any sort of bias against anyone in …show more content…
However, Bok argues that when the times come to decide what is more important, a mutual respect for each other or free speech, the Supreme Court had made it clear that it stands on the side of free speech (Bok, 67). Bok states that he agrees that those who have decided to behave in an tasteless fashion to be self serving and unthinking of the society as a whole. However, Bok then states that just because an individual disapproves an action that express hate or racism, it doesn't give the individual who disapproves any right to ban that action (Bok, 2). Bok furthers argue that because these rules are made to protect the minorities, it is not fair to those who the rules does not extend its coverage to. (Bok, 2) The most important point made by both Hitchens and Bok was if we were to put a censor in place, who is to decide what or what cant be said? There isn’t anyone in the world who would be qualified to decide for an entire country what is considered hate speech or what is not considered hate speech. The simple reason being no matter who the person is, he or she would always have some sort of bias against someone because of his/her race, religion, work or previous dislike for any individuals. With this bias in place, no one would be able to fully take on the responsibility of being a fair censor.
Limiting freedom of speech is not a good idea because the pros outweighs the cons. Censorship would not work because there isn’t an individual,
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
If limitations are placed on some things, but not others, then it will lead to a great deal of conflict. Freedom of expression is a great thing, however it does come along with a few negative side effects. This including, hateful, ignorant, and rude individuals who do not care what they say. Some want to be able to control these hateful people and restrict what they are permitted to do or say. But, where is the gray line?
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
We appealed to this topic personally because of everything we see nowadays starting off with the election, all the way to how people choose to express themselves these days. Freedom of speech is encouraged in this country, but can having full freedom of speech affect us more positive
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., amend I). This clause, albeit consists of a mere ten words, holds much power and affluence in the American unique way of life. It guarantees Americans the right to speak freely without censorship by preventing the government from restricting the rights of the people to express their opinions. Consequently, this freedom can encourage citizens’ participation in politics; promote an adaptable and tolerant community; facilitate the discovery of truth; and ultimately create a stable nation. However, how much freedom should be granted to an individual? Where should the line be drawn for the coverage free speech protection? (1) What happens when the exercise of free speech puts other constitutional values in jeopardy? What values should prevail? (2) In an attempt to address these questions, many opposing interpretations have been presented. While some construe this clause in an absolute, categorical approach, others take on a more lenient, balancing stance. (1)
Background- Well limiting a person’s speech online certainly isn’t a thought that just came out of the blue. It started as people, particularly young students, and their use of technology to freely share their thoughts on social media sites. And what became of it was more of bullying one’s peers online than just sharing one’s innocent opinion. But schools are meant to be a safe learning
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
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 becomes limited via “free speech zones.” Free Speech Zones are areas allocated for the purpose of free speech on campus. These zones bypass our constitutional right to freedom of speech by dictating where and when something can be said, but not what can be said.
Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
The author provides many facts that support his argument and makes sure to explain how other solutions would not work to solve this problem effectively. The article provides a plethora of facts discussing how the use of censorship is not the way to go due to its negative connotation and how the law cannot do anything, because technically nothing wrong is really happening the law viewpoint. The author finally concluded his essay by discussing how the solution he proposed maybe the best one they can use at the moment and how the solution has been used and been proven successful. The weaknesses of the essay include lack of information regarding the Supreme Court readings and the fact that he did not cite any sources to show ethos, but he himself was the president of Harvard University so that might have been
...ntinuously keeping people from saying what they want, the government is simply making them want to act out and speak out even more. To become a better nation or better citzens, we must learn to tolerate or accept the ideas of others no matter how absurd or profane they may be. No one has to agree with these ideas. Being able to tolerate the opinions of others leads to order and peace ( Tinder 44). For us to really be a free nation we must allow true free speech. “Order and peace are spontaneous and will tend to prevail wherever there is freedom” (Tinder 45).
Censorship is detrimental to society. People can’t learn from their mistakes if we hide them. People can’t decide the best option if we say there are no options. People can’t understand each other if they don’t know what anyone is thinking. People can’t mature when they are “protected” from mean words.
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.
Ever wondered the reason behind racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, children committing crime or violence? The main reason is that censorship is not properly imposed or there is a need of censorship in the society. Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain people, individual, groups or government officials find it objectionable, offensive or dangerous on others. There are varieties of other definitions but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/or resources from those who seek it. Hence censorship is essential in society to eliminate discrimination on basis of race and sex, protect children, maintain stability and restore what censor sees as lost moral values. Censorship occurs when expressive materials like books, magazines, movies, videos, music or work of art are restricted to particular audiences based on their age or other characteristics. (http://www.ala.org/oif/intellectualfreedeomandcensorship.html)