Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
debates over free speech and hate speech
freedom of speech
freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: debates over free speech and hate speech
The Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech In society the topic of free speech comes up very frequently. One side will argue that there should be no limit on what someone wants to say, while others believe that the idea on full free speech is dangerous and should be restricted. In a video that was presented to us there was a debate that conquered this topic on why or why not this should be allowed. This topic of free speech has gone on for decades and continues to be a fight on whether it should be limited. In the debate they both made very good points on why they believe what they said. The side for no-platforming’s main argument was claims that harms that come with no-platforming are more serious than someone being allowed to …show more content…
This was very convincing for me because of who I am as a person. Being a minority shows you how much peoples words can have influence on another person. Taking into consideration that not all people who want free speech have bad intentions or say horrible things, however there are still some people who do. With free speech sometimes comes discrimination, stereotyping and racist things being said from certain people. Words can be very harmful when said in certain ways and people shouldn’t have to hear that in public settings such as school. Another reason is why I was convinced was the fact of how far words can bring someone. There are many situations in history that if they had had a restriction on free speech these specific situations might not have happened. For example with Hitler, he said many derogatory things towards Jewish people and anyone he thought was ‘subhuman’. He was able to run an entire country into executing one of the biggest genocides history has ever seen off of his views. Now if he were not allowed to publically say the things that he did, he might not have gained an audience that was able to accomplish his master …show more content…
No-platforming does limit people’s speech sometimes when they aren’t even trying to say things that are inappropriate or malicious. One point was when they said that people could falsely get people charged or in trouble over what someone will claim were hurtful words. Everyone has a different line of what they describe as hurtful. To one person a comment can be offensive and to another it is just everyday common talk. This will be hard to distinguish what was rude from what wasn’t and people will be able to turn little things into something it was not meant too be and with not having a limit on free speech this would not be able to happen. However, though that point was convincing it did not persuade me to join their side. The idea that, yes some cases may not be that serious still a majority of them are. People that complain that they are not allowed free speech are usually trying to say something that they know is not appropriate because if it were then this wouldn’t be an issue. I did not find most of their arguments convincing because the cons to free speech way out the pros. Especially in an environment such as a university people are still learning everyday who they are and what they want to become. From the morals and ethics that we learn everyday in school I don’t think it would be logical to have someone come in and speak an hour on
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
Or that free speech can be hate speech which is wrong, and shouldn’t be tolerated, since 40% of college students do not believe in free-speech. While they may have a point, we live in the most accepting country in the world, and people shouldn’t be too sensitive. When you start dwindling away at our freedom it is very dangerous because it could be gone before you know it. It also is our fourth amendment right. Without this the civil right’s movement wouldn’t have happened, freedom of press, speech, etc is what led to the world that we have today. A great quote from George Orwell who predicted a anti speech world “If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell the people what they do not want to hear”. If you don’t believe in it then you don’t believe in the Constitution, and simple human right. I do have a bias that I displayed in this paper. I am against government interaction that is against free-speech, and against other of our rights. This was my bias in the
At this point in a college freshmen’s life, they have been in school for 14 years. Throughout those 14 years, freshmen have learned the Bill of Rights like they’ve learned how to walk and the first amendment the way they’ve learned to talk. The first amendment has been engrained in a child from the first history class in 5th grade, to the fifth history class in 9th grade and the eighth class in their senior year. In those eight years, a student has the first amendment in their head to bring to college and express themselves how they see fit and how they have been socialized to do so. According to Dinesh D’Souza, Stuart Taylor and Tim Robbins freedom of speech has been inhibited and taken out by politics and political correctness and fueled heavily by the societies need for preferential treatment.
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.
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.
Historically, such attacks on free speech have risen sharply in times of national crisis -- precisely when a full range of views is sorely needed. They are particularly disturbing on campuses of higher education that should be strongholds of people who defend independent thinking.
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.
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
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.
At its core, the argument for no platforming is that spreading hate speech from a position
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.
"What is freedom of Speech? Without the opportunity to outrage, it stops to exist" said Salman Rushdie. This statement impeccably sums up the endless level-headed discussion about the right to speak freely and abhor discourse. Freedom of discourse and articulation has a place with the gathering of crucial human privileges of each individual on this planet. Nowadays we are seeing the rising worries about hate speech, like if it is secured by this fundamental human right or if the right to speak freely ought to have a few confinements. Given the way that each individual is permitted to express considerations and convictions, forbidding the negative remarks would, actually, deny his or her fundamental rights i.e. the right to speak freely.
What if the leader of an extreme military group, like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), was giving a speech, would you tell them to watch their language? Enforcing hate speech laws are unnecessary because there are alternative laws in place to protect human rights, civilization can self-regulate around negative opinions and most importantly, it challenges the constitutional freedom of speech Canadians are promised. The surge of social media platforms encourages men and women to communicate globally and discuss their commonalities, but it can provoke hateful words when strong opinions conflict with each other. By banning hate speech, it opens the door to banning any kind of free speech, and the freedom to express one’s opinion is hindered.
Free speech is the gateway to the actual truth of the world. A free society is like a breeding ground for innovation, creativity and new ideas to flourish and flaunt. Unhindered speech acts as a tool for the journalists and media to expose the corruptive methods adopted by those who abuse power. But its importance goes on to play a very crucial role in any decision making in a society, as it is preceded by discussion and consultation of different and wide range of
Such a central right, it is contended, should not to be restricted but to prevent genuine damage to others. Slander or yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater, for instance, can bring about genuine mischief and, hence, is really banned. Conversely, what grounds forbid as "hatred speech" is principally feeling that, while regularly hostile and disagreeable, does not bring about genuine damage. The basic right of free speech should not to be confined only to counteract hate speech. As Jesse Singal mentioned “This isn’t the behavior of people who are capable of weighing opposing ideas, or of changing their minds when they are confronted with evidence that suggests that they are wrong,” (Singal), this gave us an idea of how college students became less open to new ideas as they were restricted by speech