If only using one word to represent the United States, “freedom” will be the best answer ever. Due to the protection of the First Amendment, free speech has long been an indispensable part of American people's daily lives. However, there have been lots of arguments when free speech come into campuses. For example, the First Amendment protects all kinds of speech, so students have their right to express themselves even if they are doing hate speeches; nevertheless, if hate speeches do injury some other students, it becomes a very serious problem to not keep the institution peaceful anymore. Just like most people say “school is a miniature of society”, reasonably dealing with the issue of hate speech on campus will be more effective in nurturing …show more content…
In many colleges, there are a number of hate speeches that attacks a person or a group of people on the basis of religion or race. Yeah, ignoring them is not a bad idea, but sometimes when intentional face-to-face insults happen to oneself, it is not easy to control the emotion to not counterattack. Also, while students are walking on campus, they will become unwilling audiences to the hate speech which someone is doing at the same time. All these uncontrollable factors has made simply ignoring almost useless and impossible. Hate speeches has brought indelible injury and pain to many people and even a whole group. Many great teachers and deans have spent lots of their time to seek an effective solution dealing with hate speeches; however, they have not yet found the perfect solution because it is not easy to answer the question why many people from different backgrounds can’t understand and live with each other. Campus speech codes, which have been accepted and used by many college to censor and restrict some kinds of speech on campus, seems like a not bad solution to deal with hate speech. In the essay “On Racist Speech”, the author Charles R. Lawrence totally agrees with the idea that colleges need to regulate hate speech because he consider that hate speech “[…] falls directly within the ‘fighting words’ exception to First Amendment protection” (Lawrence 65). Lawrence also gives the case of “Brown …show more content…
Firstly, speech codes do violate the freedom of speech because every student has their own right to express their ideas which “[…] does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil” (Bok 69), and the right is absolutely protected by the 1st amendment. Therefore, it is extremely unreasonable for speech codes to impose its own values on students, and more seriously, this will limit students' diversities of thought, which is pretty bad for training talents at school. In the essay “A First Amendment Junkie”, the author Susan Jacoby basically argues that censoring pornography goes against the 1st Amendment, and she writes “Feminists who want to censor what they regard as harmful pornography have essentially the same motivation as other would-be censors: They want to use the power of the state to accomplish what they have been unable to achieve […]” (Jacoby 49), making her point that pornography might be offensive to some people, but these people have their own choice to not view it; however, if it really comes to censor contents based on personal preferences, it undoubtedly changes the meaning of the exist of the 1st Amendment, and this not only shows disrespect for the freedom of speech but also shows imperfections in the legal
Charles R. Lawrence intended audience in his article “On Racist Speech” is college students and universities. His sense of tone is forthcoming. Lawerence word choice sets the tone by using the words conspicuous,dissenter, and bigot. The article gives examples of how universities do not protect minority college students. Lawrence states that universities should protect their students He also gives an example of how universities have tried to have rules to ban racist speech yet they have proven ineffective in stopping racial slurs. The regulations have not stopped the verbal brutality yet it has stopped the occurrences of physical fights. He mentions how students do not have any need to be hurt verbally.
In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.
Censorship is “the restriction or removal of information, or the prevention of free expression” (Taylor 8). There are many things that can be censored such as books, movies, TV shows, newspapers, and the way people dress. People censor things for a number of reasons- they do not agree with it, find it offensive, or think that it is just inappropriate in general. Different people consider different things inappropriate, so the content of what is censored varies. Anyone can censor, including parents, teachers, school officials, and board members (Taylor 8-10) Many things are censored in schools and places where children are present because parents do not want their kids to be exposed to inappropriate content (Taylor 10). Students are entitled to their First Amendment rights just as much as adults are, but schools still censor things like newspapers, books, and clothing.
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.
And even though the First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech, including such hate speech, there are limits. The federal and all state governments, including public colleges and universities and private schools that accept federal financial aid, cannot unnecessarily regulate speech, with the following exceptions: “obscenity, figh...
Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful freedoms and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of speech is perhaps our most cherished, and one of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all endure to ensure our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.
How much we valuse the right of free speech is out to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life promises the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Where racist, sexist and homphobic speech is concerned, I believe that more speech - not less - is the best revenge. This is particualrly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. They can organize effectively to encounter bad attitudes, possibly to change them, and imitate togetherness against the forces of intolerance.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
A recent Annual Security and Fire Safety Report published by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign say’s “that the number of hate crime that has been reported, is at an all-time high; therefore, actions are being done to help those on campus who have been affected by hate
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
In this world today, hate is becoming increasingly more abundant, especially as it concerns race. Whether it be an unarmed black man shot by a white police officer or the use of racial slurs towards someone, it seems like racism is all around us. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, it shows a little girl named Scout using racial slurs. Racism is so culturally accepted in the town that it’s okay to use racial slurs such as the N-Word that even Atticus, a lawyer representing a black man falsely accused of rape, uses it a couple of times. Earlier this year, the Ku Klux Klan, a group of white supremacists, held a violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and proved that racism isn’t a thing of the past.
College campuses have always been the sites where students can express their opinions without fear. There have been many debates about the merits of allowing free speech on campus. Some students and faculties support allowing free speech on campus, while others believe that colleges should restrict free speech to make the college’s environment safer for every student. Free speeches are endangered on college campuses because of trigger warning, increasing policing of free speech, and the hypersensitivity of college students.
Today we have looked at the problem known as hate crimes and the varied causes which keep it in existence. We have also discussed some solutions to this act of hate.
The First Amendment is known as the most protected civil liberty that protects our right to freedom of speech. There has been much controversy regarding hate speech and laws that prohibit it. These problems have risen from generation to generation and have been protested whether freedom of speech is guaranteed. According to our text book, By the People, hate speech is defined as “hostile statements based on someone’s personal characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.” Hate speech is a topic of issue for many people and their right’s, so the question is often proposed whether hate speech should be banned by government.