People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
Freedom is a paradox, especially in America. Everyone is free, but everyone must obey laws. In 1776, America chose to fight against her oppressor. Rather than be a single colony, America became a separate country. Today as an adolescent, America faces a new uphill battle, free speech. Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article.
In Nat Hentoff essay, “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” he debates that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how it is taken by others. The one example that pops out to me is the student at Brown University, Dough Hann. He states many offensive things about several people and is expelled because it was not the first time something like this has happened. Freedom of speech is difficult subject that has many different views on it. The way someone feels is imitated by what we face in everyday life. I do agree that everyone should have freedom of speech, but it should be redirected by not hurting others view in how they interrupt it. It should be approached with a tasteful opinion. We may think that something that we say is not
The Confederate flag is a contentious topic, creating a great amount of controversy. Recently, especially, over the course of this year, the question on whether U.S. citizens should be allowed to display the Confederate flag has been addressed throughout our society. Individuals who are in favor and defend the battle of the Confederate flag, state that this is only a symbol that represents their heritage and early America. However, this flag can additionally be as a symbol of hate. For instance, with reason, numerous American citizens believe this flag represents white supremacy and is extremely offensive. For this reason, I believe students should not be allowed to display the Confederate flag while in school. If there are some people who would find this display as a representation for hate and racism, then the flag should not be permitted. Even if there was only one person who found offense, then others should give that person respect.
The first amendment guarantees five basic freedoms to the American citizens. These freedoms are of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion. As all the amendments, the first amendment is intended for use in situations with the government. The first amendment was written by James Madison and was sent to the states to be ratified on September 25, 1789 along with the twelve proposals for the bill of rights.. Then it was officially adopted on December 15, 1791.
In Derek Bok’s, Protecting Freedom of Expression On The Campus, he brings light to the issue of censorship in universities. He states that students at Harvard University got offended after a few students displayed the confederate flag. There have been many cases in which people have tried to censor offensive material however; the Supreme Court preferred to conserve the freedom of expression. He believes that if censorship starts to take place, it will be difficult to know when to cross the line. In addition, it will not fix the initial problem since the offenders will continue to abuse others using different means. To him the best solution to this problem is, to encourage students to ignore the obnoxious behavior, thus leading them to stop.
In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech. There is a difference between having hurt feelings when two people simply differ on views of a matter and what is deemed as “dignity harms”, which is when people are deemed as unworthy of respect. Fish believes that the First Amendment is indifferent to the effects on society.
Today’s college students are becoming more sensitized to the harshness of the outside world. Instead of learning to be resilient to others’ comments, they are being taught to take offense to any little word that could in some way be connected with a bad experience they might have had, and college administrators and professors are aiding this childish behavior. They are backing this movement to make adults into children. With this new movement to rid college campuses of any speech that may make anyone feel uncomfortable, students are being treated less like adults, and more like elementary children.
I will first discuss how hate speech causes harm. Then, I shall explain how hate speech should be barred in specific spaces in order to protect the majority. Next, I will explain how college campuses should operate as safe spaces where hate speech is regulated and allowed only in cases meant to provide students with a learning opportunity. Following this, I will examine Northeastern University’s policy on hate speech and compare it to my proposition. Finally, I will present the opposing perspective that believes hate speech should be allowed and encouraged on college campuses in order to present students with new viewpoints and help them grow as intellectual
hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech being an
Guns may provide a basic kind of bodily and personal safety. This is the recurring argument put forth by campus carry proponents. This argument is dubious at best. But this much is clear: guns do nothing to help universities attain the kind of safety they desire and need -- the safety that enables intellectual and political exploration. Guns by their very nature dampen speech -- they chasten it. Colleges simply cannot tolerate
Political conservatives in America vastly hold true the original traditions and freedoms in America and rarely compromise with change. One such prominent conservative, John W. Whitehead, in his essay, “The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech,” argues that the modern day public educational system has inflicted unconstitutional restrictions of freedom on its students. Throughout his essay, Whitehead attempts to build his credibility by utilizing the Bill of Rights and different examples to appeal to the ethos, logos, and pathos aspects of his audience – the American citizens; however, Whitehead’s apparent bias, shown through his strong conservative values and passionate tone, causes him to disregard the deeper meaning of the educational
I will argue for speech codes on college campuses because they create more good than harm to students on college campuses. The two reasons in support of speech codes on college campuses are that hate speech is prohibitive to a learning environment and secondly that hate speech does cause harm to the person or persons being attacked. The strongest objection against speech codes on college campuses is that speech codes are illegal because they infringe upon the rights of US citizens because of the US Constitutions first amendment.
Here, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, discuss how vindictive protectiveness hurts students on college campuses, challenging college’s ability to be a breathing ground for diverse critical thinking as opposed to protection from opposing ideas. Vindictive protectiveness is the protection of students from words and ideas on college campuses that may seem offensive or opposite; along with the punishment of people with these words regardless if it was accidental or of critical critique. They state “…students should [be taught] how to live in a world full of potential offenses.” They go on to hypothesize
What is free speech? According to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949, article 19, saying “everyone has the right of freedom of their own opinion and expression”. Here are my thoughts people should be able to speak on the government policies publicly without being hurt because the first amendment protects them. Still, not everyone is entitled to speak and articulate what they want to say, because it may cause trouble.