Hate speech regulation has been the topic of debate by college and university campuses for a long period of time. These campuses find themselves in a sticky situation; the constitution defends the right to free speech, the same speech that is causing hate speech problems on campuses across the nation. Hate speech should be regulated across university and college campuses because of the potential psychological harm that a student is placed in, the obligations that a university or college has towards the student, and the idea that hate speech brings no tangible or intangible benefit to these campuses.
The American Bar Association defines hate speech as “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits” and while that provides for an adept general understanding of the term, it gives no direction nor implication of how and if such speech should be limited or prohibited. It is inherently difficult to try and capture all the complexities of both sides of the argument regarding hate speech, and attempting to find a middle ground is possibly even more troublesome. We are a nation built upon guaranteed individual rights. We pride ourselves in our basic freedoms which include the freedom of speech as designated by the First Amendment allowing everyone,
Miguel Raymundo Hernandez Dr. Jack Hull Ethic in Government Nov. 30,2015 The Protection of Hate Speech Hate speech, According to American Bar Association is "that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, other traits (American).” Hate speech can include “insulting nouns for racial groups, degrading caricatures, a threat of violence, and literature portraying individual as animal-like. There has been long debate whether to protect hate speech in the United States. The hate speech has been protected because it been fundament principle of the constitution.
"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
Free Speech VS Hate Speech There are two sides of a coin; the same way freedom can be bifurcated into two, namely free speech and hate speech. Now what exactly is free speech? There is a simple answer to that, free speech is basically to voice out your opinions, it’s the freedom to say what you like.(Mill,J.S 2003)
Universities and colleges are considered to be communities. In recent years, many campuses have sought to become more diverse by attracting students and faculty from groups that were historically underrepresented. The campus atmosphere brought by new and ethnically or religiously different peers can overpoweringly affect an institution's prolonged diversity. Intolerance to those who differ from the majority may chip away at the confidence of those previously unwanted or unrecognized. In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language many college boards have decided it necessary to forbid the expression of “abusive, profane or sexually offensive (messages) to the average person” (Kean, Internet Policy). There are several reasons offered to justify the banning of free thinking, some understandable only through the use of narrow minded and biased logic. The logic behind these ideas that lead to regulation of free speech and ban or punish those who are utilizing their rights to free expression cannot be justified.
There are some who feel no one has a right to express their prejudices publicly. In the pursuit of trying to make things better for the oppressed, the oppressed have been adversely affected by their own regulations. For example, the first cases under the Michigan speech code were charges against blacks and the first case in the Supreme Court was a white man offended by a black man. Purists have defined hateful words as violence.
Because of the rights given to students in the Frist Amendment, school administrators cannot prohibit student from being ignorant, hateful, mean, or even using offensive speech. Consider the case Street v. New York, the Supreme Court held that speech could not be restricted because it is offensive. In this case the court stated “… it is ...
I admit that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and freedom speech. However, several questions come to my mind: Do people really need to use offensive speech to say what they think about the other? Does offensive speech resolve problems? Is really necessary to use it? As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says, ‘“…separating speech that deserved protection from dangerous speech that did not’” (Richey, 61). This position shows us that people should realize the difference between offensive speech and freedom speech, since offensive speech could incite riots worldwide. People around the world have different beliefs, education, and religion, which is the essence of human being, to be different. What happens when people do not respect those differences that make everyone unique? Well, when offensive speech comes up it could produce disturbances between people and nations. The author says that at least four protesters died in Afghanistan, and 18 were killed in confrontations with police in Kashmir. That happened after angry Muslims took the streets in reaction to the plan to burn the Quran (56). That demonstrates how a simple offensive word or action toward another can provoke the death of people. As an illustration, in 2012 the film Innocence of Muslims was released, the director Sam Bacile, who makes fun of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad (something forbidden by the
Strip a university of its traditions and all you have is a school. It seems that the concept that one cannot please everyone all the time still needs to be learned. Another lesson that needs to be learned is to face offensive language head on instead of hiding from it. This cannot happen, however, if colleges are sheltering their students. In a speech covered by Vanity Fair of September 15th 2015, President Obama said “I don’t agree that … students at colleges have to be coddled and protected from different points of views.” It is the duty of a university to teach it’s students how to live in the real world. How can they do this if they continue to coddle