One thing that sets America apart from other countries is its freedom. The freedom to say, do, or practice whatever one wants. Hate speech is part of that freedom. Not allowing “hate speech” is essentially telling someone, “Hey, you shouldn’t have an opinion.” There are quotations marks around the words hate speech because there’s no real guideline on what is considered a hate speech. It’s sort of a gray line.
The First Amendment guarantees 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.” The freedom of speech, press, and religion have been pillars of the United States and other Democratic nations who knew the need to have these rights guaranteed. This idea was a major element of the Enlightenment period, the thoughts of John Locke, Jean Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Voltaire would be incorporated into the Constitution which included Freedom of Speech as a Human Right. Despite the protection of speech, it is more a matter of what speech is welcome where. A rise in partisanship has decreased the ability to speak an opinion or hold a
Any expression, therefore, that impedes on one person or a group of people should be stopped because it has not done anything to benefit anybody. Mill’s statements on the freedom of speech is what I will rely on for my argument. Mill’s view on the freedom of speech is still relevant today because he does not take the view that there shouldn’t be any freedom of speech, but that it should be limited at certain times and this issue is very relevant in today’s society. Mill states a bold statement in the footnote at the beginning of Chapter II of On Liberty, in defence of the freedom of speech ‘If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered’. Mill clearly is in the defence of the freedom of speech here because this liberty has to exist with everything so that we have ‘absolute freedom of
Even though considering race in the college admission process creates student-wide diversity, racial preferences should not exist in the admission process because Affirmative Action policies are inequitable, give an unfair advantage to students that do not deserve it, and leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action policies used in college admissions are unfair. They do not advocate for equality of all people. These policies do not evenhandedly measure one’s academic skills. Whether or not a person is accepted into a college has nothing to do with their academics.
Entering adulthood it is important to learn how to express one’s views effectively. The First Amendment protects our right to express our beliefs, however, our right to speak should not inhibit others right to their own voices. Lucia Valdivia, a professor at Reed College, believes the key is to be open to others opinions, not necessarily having to respect them or agree with them. At colleges such as Emory University, hate speech codes are being enacted to outline prohibited behavior. Banned behavior includes conduct directed at any person or, group of people because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran 's status and that has the purpose of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment (Uelmen).
In reality, those terrorist who call themselves Muslims are not Muslims because they are polluting Islam by twisting and turning it to give themselves an excuse to conduct violence and unjust against others. No matter what religion someone has, people have no right to attack them. As long as it is ethically/morally okay, it doesn’t matter what they believe in. Whether they are going to affect you in a positive or negative way is what matters. There are a number of reasons why people want to join hate groups.
The culture of America to act in violence when someone disagrees with someone, in my opinion, will never result in progress or solving said disagreement. Screaming at someone and disrespecting someone will not result in them realizing they are wrong, but conversation or peaceful protest has the potential to alter one’s ideas. An idea that struck me, instead of having written code about prohibiting hate speech, why not construct a code that requires a certain percentage of students to sign a petition avoiding that person from speaking on campus. At the same time, to counter that, if an X percentage amount of people sign something requesting for this person to speak at their campus then that person will be allowed and these people are expected
Symbolic interactionist perspective in the article is the “flag” it symbolizes patriotic for the country and the “national anthem” shows how we fought for our freedom. Kaepernick believes that the flag does not represent that for his people. Kaepernick states the reason why he is so willing to sit is because of all the police brutality throughout the Caucasian, Hispanic, and African American community. Kaepernick said “I am not going to stand up and show pride for a country that oppresses black people, and people of color. To me this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.
However, the university is unable to regulate the students’ offensive symbols. In detail, the quote “…extremely difficult to decide… particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of communication” demonstrates that to limit and categorize speech is challenging since people have diverse opinions on what type of speech is deemed as offensive or discourteous (Bok). The opposition of this conflict is that speech regulations can trigger backfires by certain rebellious and problematic offenders who believe in their actions. To solve the dilemma, Bok encourages the readers to overlook offensive material and educate the offenders in order to cause less publicity of obnoxious speech and help the wrongdoers understand their negative effects on the
First and foremost, there is a consensus that whenever there seems to be the absence of reasons that are constitutionally valid to regulate the speech of students, then they are fully entitled to a freedom of expression provided they remain within reasonable constitutional bounds. More so, a choice by the administration to prohibit the students against expressing their opinion, in the absence of concrete evidence that permitting them would have had any substantial adverse effects on their discipline is a fundamental violation of the First
In the pursuit of knowledge one should not be discriminated against in regards to race, religion, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. These factors should not be factored in when making decisions for the undergraduate admissions in universities. Academic performance should be the priority when the selection is made because there are several disadvantages for making decisions based on, let’s say race. Some of them include violating the rights of people, promoting a biased and unjust society, widening the social and financial inequalities between the races. Also it results in under qualification of that race and can lead to failure in the future.
It is unlawful to victimize somebody premise of race, shading, religion, sex. Unwelcome lewd gestures, demands for sexual favors and other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature constitute inappropriate behavior. While exploring claims of lewd behavior, EEOC takes a gander at the entire record. A determination
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.