Schools have been evaluated by different organizations on whether or not they should be involved in off-campus cyberbullying. Some believe that they can be involved in off-campus to stop suicide or emotional distress and to stop them from putting the victim through lots of pain. Others believe that schools shouldn’t intervene in cyberbullying outside of schools because it affects their right to the first amendment which is “The freedom of speech”. Cyberbullying should be taken into the hands of the school if it happens off-campus because if nothing happens then it can get a child hurt or even killed. Students who are targeted by cyberbullies have no way to escape from the attackers brutality, who can drive the victim to suicide or self harm.
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
Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true. There is no hate speech exception to First Amendment. There are some kind of words which are not protected especially the fighting or insulting words or speech in which a person threatens to commit a crime that would result in death, serious injury, or damage is not protected by the First Amendment, instead First Amendment gives the right to fight against injustice, inequality and unfairness. For example Black Lives Matter movement, this movement has every right to express their feelings. The ways they are protesting are protected under the First Amendment.
Shiell, the author of “Campus Hate Speech on Trial,” opposes speech codes on campus and insists the importance of a university to “distinguish genuine harassment from mere offensiveness” (169). In order to achieve equality, a university must adopt “educational and economic measures” instead of imposing punishments due to the fact that educating has a better result in the long run (169). Also, universities must make sure that due process rights are under the protection, meaning that you might not be sinful although you are accused of disobeying speech regulations (169). Shiell believes that universities should come up with some policies that are concentrated on conduct rather than speech since speech is tolerable but not the action (169). Even if a university must set up rules to regulate, it should regulate speech that is a “targeted, intentional, repeated verbal abuse serving no legitimate academic purpose” (171).
Censorship in America can vary between the silencing of young voices and the prevention of exposing others of inappropriate material. Many people are afraid of losing their freedom of speech, as first amendment rights should be mandatory for American citizens. Polar to this argument insists the importance of censorship, as it can shield the public from information that can lead to fear or chaos. Leaving students ignorant to world problems, however, is argued by Sonja West that it removes their first amendment rights and creates a future working-class of Americans who are clouded from the truth. West is a law professor at the University of Georgia who is distinguished for her expertise in the first amendment law and minor in journalism.
Cutterham states that on campus, “social media can…[link] together voices that are otherwise marginalized and disconnected” (2). While critics claim students are losing their critical thinking skills, Cutterham states that “students are using their critical faculties to uncover structures of power in their own academic and social environment” (2). He also states that professors and other educators are becoming more “coddled” than their students and are afraid that their mishaps and small mistakes will cause them to be torn to shreds (2). He also says that in wanting students to end protests “for their own good”, they are trying to protect themselves. This is the change in dynamic that is Cutterham is using for his
Therefore, colleges should definitely prevent people who have a background of violence and crime from speaking at their campuses for the safety of their students. However, this also means that speech that does not call for violence should not be prohibited, no matter how offensive it is. After all, when all of these historical standards are picked out and taken into account, what we are left with is the bare backbone of our nation’s philosophy: the freedom to express your true
Just like in Starkville, many public school districts across the country have made the change to mandatory dress code policies. Many people think dress codes are a solution for many problems in Public Schools, but in reality, it only causes more problems. Dress codes are unconstitutional, take away students’ individuality, and are not a legitimate solution to real problems. One problem with school uniforms with school uniforms is the fact that they are unconstitutional. Based on his research, Charles Haynes inferred, “ In finding for the students, the court was a very clear that schools could not ban student expression because they dislike it or think it may start conflicts.
The pros of being against book banning is the First Amendment, parental control, and true facts and occurrences. The cons of being against book banning is that the works contain offensive and racist material, parents cannot control what their children learn at school, and the true facts and events that promote bad influence. People should not support book banning because the First Amendment supports the freedom of speech and the press. In the past the Roman Catholic Church began the practice of book banning. The author provides information that reads, “In the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church began keeping a list of prohibited books.
For the sake of campus protestors and their professors across the country, it’s time to make something clear: there’s no such thing as hate speech. That should go without saying, since freedom of speech and free inquiry is supposed to be what college is all about. But the recent spate of violent student protests, from the University of California at Berkeley to Middlebury College in Vermont, have been met with a collective shrug from an alarming number of college students, professors, and administrators who seem to be under the impression that violence is okay so long as its purpose is to silence “hate speech.” By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? That’s hate speech.
While students are said to be given the right of free speech by the first amendment, sometimes this right gets limited in certain circumstances. For example, in the Layshock v. Hermitage School District case, Justin Layshock made a profile on Myspace where he mocked his principal, inspiring the same actions from fellow students. Although he confessed to doing this, Layshock should not have been punished because the actions did not start at the school, but outside the building. Also, in this case, the school failed to make a connection to how the profile caused school disruption. In conclusion, suspending Layshock because of the profile and his speech violated his First Amendment rights.
An argument many people make against banning alcohol is that if alcohol isn’t legal on campus, then students will go off campus. By going off campus they can drink to their hearts desire and they won’t be under supervision. They say that this also creates problems because now students aren’t under adult supervision and can, quite frankly, do what they please. Also people make the argument that colleges should spend more time on alcohol safety and proper use. Although colleges should provide these seminars for students on alcohol, they should also crack down on its usage.
There is a line drawn to when they become hate speech codes or the location of them. “ The article Campus Hate Speech codes, states “Hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory 's, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Others ban behavior that intentionally inflicts emotional distress. Still others outlaw general harassment and threats," without clarifying what constitutes such conduct.” What the writer means is that hate speech codes are categorized in many ways.