Hate Speech Regulation

Today in America and university campuses, the First Amendment is rather protected or shrouded with censorship, but which action is more important? From speaking on college campuses to social media, freedom of speech has become controversial in the United States, especially, protecting hate speech or censoring it. Many regulating efforts have been attributed to the discomfort provoked by hate speech and its contents, in many campuses of the United States. Advocates of free speech and hate speech have retaliated in response to this regulation of their free speech and censorship of content in their speeches. Efforts to regulate hate speech are ineffective.

Regulating hate speech oppresses rather than protect. Hate speech is used to discriminate,

Gerald F. Uelmen, dean of Santa Clara University School of Law, states that “when hate speech is directed at a student from a protected group, like those listed in Emory University's code, the effect is much more than hurt feelings. The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena” (Uelmen). Hate speeches bring up past discrimination and emotional discomfort by the group targeted by the hate speeches. However, hate speech codes invite more harm. Uelmen also argues that “what campuses prohibit as "hate speech" is primarily opinion that, while often offensive and unpopular, does not cause serious harm. The fundamental right to free speech should not be restricted merely to prevent hate speech” (Uelmen). Hate speech is very unpopular in many universities but is merely an opinion that is less harmful than what people make of it. The hate speech codes can, although, incite violence over the right to freedom of speech. Rivals have clashed violently with each other over the debate between limiting freedom of speech or respect the right to freedom of speech. The conflict between the two different supporters and advocates, can cause great bodily harm to those involved in the disputes. Diverse groups clashing over the civil liberty defeats the purpose of regulating hate speech in order to maintain the peace. Proving that regulation is ineffective, especially, when the fight is over the very codes that are suppose to avoid harm rather than the hate