Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
debates over free speech and hate speech
essays on hate speech on collehe campuses
should hate speech be protected under the first amendment?
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
In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians, and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980's. Outrage, indignation and demands for change are the responses to these incidents - understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses. Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or olicies prhibiting speech that offends any group based on race gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
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.
College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is npt social cjange.
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
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...
This paper will address some of the issues surrounding hate speech and its regulation. I will explain both Andrew Altman and Jonathan Rauch’s positions in the first two sections. The third section will be on what Altman might say to Rauch’s opposite views. I will then discuss my view that hate speech should never be regulated under any circumstance especially in the name of protecting someone’s psychology, feelings, or insecurities like Altman prescribes. In the end, I will conclude that we should not agree with Altman despite his well intentioned moral convictions to push for hate speech regulation. Although hate speech is a horrible act, people must learn to overcome and persevere through difficult situations and not leave it to the law to protect their feelings and insecurities.
Political correctness may be a coined term that the general population does not necessarily know the definition of, but is relevant in every single person’s life. In today’s society one must be very careful when verbalizing opinions in order to prevent offending others around, or from disturbing the Politically Correct Puritans: those who strongly support censorship of politically incorrect labels (Suedfeld et al 1994). There are many different theories as to what makes political correctness important and why college campuses seem to be so heavily surrounded by political correcting activists, but oddly enough there has not been an extensive amount of research done on the topic.
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
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.
Studies from universities such as UCLA, show, “ emotional harm is the equal intensity to that experienced by the body, and even long-lasting and traumatic.” ( Rosenbaum, 173) a university like to claim their reasoning to limit free speech on campus is to protect students them physically and emotionally by essentially limited their first amendment rights. That is not from of protection limiting students rights is not a long term solution. It is true that freedom of speech unconditionally is taking for granted when slander is direct to aggressively attacking someone which might lead to physical harm. It is a good thing that campuses and employers take action to prevent such events from happing. But at the cost of limiting the first amendment right is not the way to go. Most employees working in the private sector generally have no right to free speech, for those who break company policy can deal with disciplinary consequences and lost their job which is why most do not choose to fight against not have their first amendment right exercised. In 2010 a student by the name of Amanda Tatro poses a very controversial blog on social media facebook when the school found out about it. They took immediate action, amends “ criminal investigation concluded that Tatro had no intent to harm anyone, but the university imposed disciplinary charges anyway, including a failing grade and mandatory psychiatric exam.” ( LoMonte) even though Amanda was not on campus physically nor did she target any special person emotionally or physically, the campus power over limiting her right to free speech resulted in bad consequences for her actions which led to no harm. This is not right, an American citizen got in trouble for expression their first ardent right setting right at home causing no harm to no one. It is true slander
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.
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
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.
"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
This article explores the increasing hypersensitivity of college students. Universities are protecting students against uncomfortable ideas, which leads to vindictive protectiveness; vindictive protectiveness can encourage more hostile and violent responses to various microaggressions. Furthermore, social media has led to an increasing amount of vindictive protectiveness, since students are coming together on a global scale to campaign more easily. Combined together, these negative thoughts against different viewpoints discourages critical thing. As a result, this is weakening American democracy and the workforce because it does not prepare students to succeed in a world full of diverse viewpoints.
People who believe in the codes and policies believe that education, the primary reason for attending college, takes a back seat to such issues. Therefore, they believe that this problem could be solved by the enforcement of speech codes. People who also believe in the speech codes also feel that the First Amendment does not actually protect all types of speech, mostly hate speech, some even argue that freedom of speech was given in order to speak out against things such as corruption and injustice. From what I have experience, I believe that restrictions of free speech would not only hurt the whole process of education, but would also put the future of our democratic society in danger. To me expressing and discussing is the only way to solve any debate or topic of discussion today
Many Universities around the country, especially Ivy league schools, are dealing with students and faculty repressing other’s freedom of speech. However, they aren't the only ones. Many journalism outlets such as Fox News, MSNBC, and Rush Limbaugh act the same way. This is due to the conflicting ideologies that party’s side with. Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, has discussed this topic and his ideology. I believe that a citizens speech shouldn't be repressed based on the principles of respect, constructive criticism, and neutrality. As the founding fathers debated the constitution of the United States, we must work together as a whole to create a greater way of life for everyone.