The first amendment secures our right to free speech, no matter the content. When given this constitutional right, no half measure should be allowed. If one is to receive the right of free speech, they should be allowed the entirety of it, with no restrictions, whether it be by its content or location where it is taking place. Hate speech is no exception to this rule, and should be allowed in any kind of environment. In the college setting, ideas will be challenged and students will have to be open to views of others, even if it means being offended by what they have to say. Solely being based on the fact of freedom and fairness, all forms of speech must be allowed, no matter how offensive the subject is. Hate speech should be allowed in all …show more content…
Restricting this form of expression is plain censorship. To prohibit free speech is to prohibit human nature, even if that nature includes ill words of certain groups or people. For Freedom of Speech, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” (Alderman and Kennedy 25), and implementing zones, or policies that limit the freedom of speech, is a direct violation. Hate speech can be described as “speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation” (ACLU). The conflict with hate speech and freedom of speech in college campuses is that it shows no clear sign of when it reaches out of terms from the general definition. For instance, when does free speech become a hate crime, harassment, or a threat? College campuses want to limit the exercise of free speech by prohibiting the direct use of hate speech, despite being protected under the first amendment. Many will consider free speech as the freedom to say whatever you want without the intervention of law, to freely speak your mind; however, this is being restricted by college campuses and must be corrected. To restrict hate speech is to restrict our freedom of speech. This cannot be …show more content…
However, not all types of speech should be given protection. “Fighting words” should not be an exception since they incite violence and directly violate the legal boundaries of freedom of speech. Forms of speech that do provoke violence are subject to the “clear and present danger” test, which determine whether the content must be suppressed or not. The test is used when dealing with speech to rule whether a statement should be protected under the amendment. If an individual was to say something that can cause any danger to the people around them, their speech would not be protected by the First Amendment. One cannot shout “fire!” within a crowded theater and expect it to be taken as a joke. Hate speech, however, is a freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. Free speech is when everything is available, making hate speech a valid form of exercising our right. College campuses that impose policies, or that prohibit this to certain zones, are only encouraging censorship of ideas. This, in particular, can have a negative effect since, “academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society” (ACLU). Colleges must allow all forms of ideas to enter their environment, and protected hate speech is no exception. Hate speech is an exercise of the First Amendment and colleges cannot abolish that constitutional
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.
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...
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
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.
Grabber: Do we still have the freedom speech or has the internet changed the meaning of free speech?
Alongside diminishing harm, hate speech codes produce other benefits. Higher education institutions are the ideal forum for views to be debated using logical argument. A major portion of a student’s education is in learning how to derive and rationally support an opinion. The realm of speech that these codes target is not portrayed rationally or used to rouse discussion. In fact, hate speech is usually used to prompt
Freedom of speech is important part of the United States society. Yes, hate speech is harm to society, but also limit speech. Free speech has long been a debate about regulating it and protects it. People say awful things about other people and the government. The states, companies, and colleges have tried to punish or limit hate speech. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful in their effect. When the government starts regulating on free speech the people are giving up a powerful tool but the other hand hate speech violate other people liberties. As individuals are allow to speak hateful words and tried to attack a particular group people have the right encounter with positive words. Both side of argument will be allow express their without being
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
Hate speech should be regulated because it is harmful and spreads negative and disgusting stereotypes. Although hate speech does infringe on the freedom of speech, It affects many individuals by race,religion, ethnicity or sex. If hate speech is regulated there will be less negative content and insults of a person's race or religion.
The first amendment says “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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. This guarantees a person liberties and certain freedoms that can never be taken away nor can they be restricted expect if they are violating other rights. The amendment doesn't protect fighting words, false statements that damage a person's reputation, and profane speech. You can go out and speak what's on
Lawrence’s reasons, “Carefully drafted university regulations would bar the use of words as assault weapons…”(67). The education system holds primarily the younger generations who one day will run this country. We want to encourage a nation that sticks to the values that are expected and continue to have an integrated society. I agree with Lawrence that regulations need to be added, but why stop at just the education system? If an enforcement is going to be made on what can be said verbally through hate speech in one area, I believe that it should be present in all aspects such as the work field, public places, and media. There is not a way to make a strong government ban on the use of every form of hate speech but if larger industries start declaring it unacceptable it will set an example for society to follow. No one should feel as if they do not belong in a certain area or place due to their ethnicity or race. The most current situation could be Americans discriminating against Muslims and relating them to ISIS, this may not seem like segregation but it is discriminating and separating someone due to assumptions about them due to their background that they cannot change. Slowly but surely, if one American steps up and takes action our nation has the power to change hate speech forever and encourage a peaceful
Was student for peace using fighting words? Of course! NYC distinctly displayed that SFP were using fighting words that disturbed those around them. Counselor Amanda said that Student for Peace was shouting rude remarks and handing out obscene graphic images that disturbed families and the kids around them. She stated that Justice Murphy said, “ There are certain well-defined and narrowly-limited types of speech, which states prevent or punish without any Constitutional problems. These include lewd and obscene words, profanity, libelous speech, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.” This was incredibly persuasive because this obviously shows that if you are using fighting words they can arrest you “without any Constitutional problems”. In other words, Freedom of Speech is clearly limited when you are using fighting word or words that are hateful towards others. This shows that Student for Peace should be arre...
“If the goal is to promote peaceful coexistence among human beings enjoying equal dignity and respect, isn’t allowing everyone his or her say a reflection of that respect?” (David Cole). Freedom of speech, as it is protected under the first amendment, is perhaps the most important component of a democratic society. Without it people cannot speak their minds, cannot point out injustices being done by the government. Without it people are silenced. The right to speak up stretches across many topics, but not all of them are the kindest. Hate speech is a protected form of free speech, which is controversial amongst many because of its inherently hateful nature. In fact, some people argue it should not be protected under the first amendment at all. If hate speech is to be made illegal however, it would lead to the censorship of society as whole, and would be reminiscent of the days of Hitler and Mussolini. People were shot down simply for stating an opinion. Additionally, there is no need to ban hate speech as it would be unconstitutional, and if it does lead to hate crimes those hate crimes can be dealt with using pre existing laws. As the saying goes, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Correctly, hate speech codes are an efficient way to prevent offensive incidents and protect all students’ rights in order to study fairly. In addition, the effect of discriminatory harassment is much more than hurt feelings, so that the harmed students hinder their ability to compete fairly in the educational arena. According to the article Understanding Hate Speech as a Communication Phenomenon: Another View On Campus Speech Code Issues, "Speech codes maintain that hate speech inevitably creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for education and university-related work.” In other words, by implementing speech codes on campuses, students truly show their capacity to earn an education in a respectful environment.
It will not hinder the freedom of speech because it allows for the avoidance of the act of hate to be channeled. Racism is an ongoing issue that needs to be stopped immediately because everyone should be treated equal and it should never be based on the color of one’s skin. “If you’re genuinely concerned about “free speech”, take a step back and look at what’s actually happening here: a bunch of college students, on the cusp of finding their voices, being publicly berated by high-profile writers in national publications because they don’t like what they have to say. Are you sure you know who’s silencing whom?”(Lindy West), this powerful quote is reaffirming the why student bodies are voicing their opinions through protest. There’s a bigger issue that is still among us so, don’t miss the forest for the trees. Political correctness should be focused on real troubling issues with a bigger picture as stated above, but it will ultimately offended people who agree with systematic racism, and free speech will not be interrupted in any