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
To ban speech for this reason, i.e.,for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the local community who were on the wrong end of hate speech we might want to claim that they could be psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person 's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that Mill 's argument does not allow for state intervention in this case. If we base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction.
Speech codes on campuses have been used since the 1980s (Welch). They started speech codes on campuses due to an increase of student protesters and controversial content. Some people argue that the speech codes encourage positivity and protect against hate crimes, But according to the article by Welch, “Any argument may hold a kernel of truth but even without that, our beliefs can still be strengthened.” Speech codes discourage students from having open conversations about important issues. Even when problems are uncomfortable for some students, talking about them is still necessary in order to better understand the problem and find solutions. According to one faculty handbook on disruptive student policy, it is against school rules to be disruptive in class.
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.
That is frightening considering the fact that one student was able to bring multiple weapons on campus even though they were prohibited, and inflict harm upon other students that couldn't even defend themselves. That's something that will not only haunt the University, but teachers, faculty, and fellow classmates of those students forever. Colleges must understand that at any moment an unstable student, or faculty member could cause complete and utter chaos on their campus, and leave it regarded to as a dangerous environment, which could potentially keep the school from receiving funding, or even keep students from applying. Considering all of the negative things that come with not having weapons on campus, they could almost be seen as a necessity for college students. When people hear the word “weapon” the first that that typically crosses their mind is guns.
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
If we made college free for everyone we would be funding the rich. Families that have the money to pay for some or all of the cost of a college education might choose instead to take advantage of free college at a public institution. Amelia Josephson said, “In effect, the government and taxpayers would be subsidizing the rich. Critics of free college who point to this drawback often argue that a more targeted reform subsidizing college for the poor and the middle class would make more sense. They also point to the example of Brazil, a country with free college where wealthy students reap a lot of the benefits of tuition-free education at public universities.” We don’t need to be giving more money to the rich we need to be taking money from the rich to start helping out the poor more.
So I can get away from all those friends but also just take away the risk of being in trouble or being killed. How all these negative role models have harmed me and many others is by putting us in bad situations even if we were not trying to be there, but even then living in my neighborhood you cannot control what happens, sometimes you are just at the right place but at the wrong time or the wrong place at the wrong time. I have had friends shot at, robbed, beat, and etc. We have also have had to deal with the violence between citizens with citizens. No matter who is right or wrong there is violence everywhere.
People in this country have a constitutional right to practice free expression with few limits such as fighting words, true threats, defamation, incitement of lawless action, and obscenity. People do not have the right to silence others in a public venue. In recent years, conservative speakers have been threatened had their events stormed or shut down by students protesting the event of a violent and disruptive manner. Milo Yiannopoulos was shut down at UC Berkeley because many of the students there did not agree with his conservative viewpoint.
Speech codes shouldn’t even exist. People should have the right to speak however they want to. Even if there are going to be some cruel words but it’s better than going for a physical harm. “Hate speech” article is discussing about the First Amendment, language, and speech. “Hate speech” could relate to anybody perspective.