Free Spech – Hate Speech Debate

Write a paragraph response to the debate. First, before reading the debate, note if you are for or against the statement. Then note if your position changed or remained the same after you read the debate (after reading the debate, do you agree more with the pro or con position?) Give any insights on the debate or debate topic.
Topic: Speech should be allowed on campus even if it is meant to create a hostile environment” (“Free Speech–Hate Speech”).
Bolanle:
Con
A college is an educational institution or establishment where a higher education is provided for the enrolled students. In other words, people attend college to educate themselves more generally and eventually specializing in a profession. When in college, people learn a lot of valuable life lessons besides the profession of study. These lessons are not taught in courses but are learned through the experiences throughout your coursework, social life and other activities on campus. What happens around us on campus will influence those experiences, so it important that we have an environment free of hostility which may give some people bad experiences that can continue to affect them negatively even after college.
Free speech allow people to express themselves which is good, and it is protected by the First amendment. However, when it takes the form of face-to-face insults, catcalls or other assaultive speech aimed at an individual or small group of persons, then it falls directly within the “fighting words” which is an exception to First Amendment protection (Lawrence 375). The Supreme Court has held that words which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are not protected by the First Amendment. Speeches directed at another’s sexual orientation, race, religion etc. can only create a hostile environment which will not be an appropriate environment to stay focus and have a good education. Speeches that create a hostile environment should therefore not be allowed on campus; it is therefore the duty of the school authorities to ensure equal educational opportunity for everyone which is the justification for some of the colleges for setting rules concerning free speech.
We all have the right to choose what we listen to; courts have held that offensive speech may not be regulated in public forums such as streets where listener may avoid the speech by moving on. Nevertheless, the regulation of otherwise protected speech has been permitted when the speech invades the privacy of the unwilling listener, such that the unwilling listener is not able to avoid the speech (Lawrence 375). Posters, flyers, graffiti in common areas fall within the reasoning of these cases. People need a cordial environment on campus, so everyone need to have a good attitude to enable a hostile free environment.
Work cited:
Lawrence, Charles R. III. “The Debate Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not
Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims.” Texts and Contexts. 6th ed. Ed.
William Robinson and Stephanie Tucker. Boston: Thomson, 2006. 374-378. Print.
Hyun:
Pro
The specific issues about free speech have changed throughout the history, it has been inevitable for college campuses to deal with the controversies over free speech. “The hate speech dilemma” caused people to start thinking about regulations of free speech, especially in college campuses, there are arguments that college campuses should take a role to protect students who are frequently targeted by “hate speech”. (Massaro, 213) However, since free speech mainly includes the purpose of expressing own thought and idea without any pressure, the priority should be protecting own arguments even if that arguments are inappropriate from others’ perspective.
Throughout the history, people have participated and been motivated especially when they feel unfair or get disadvantages. It does not mean that those who give certain group inappropriate treat are right or can be justified. By responding hate speech coming from “ugly viewpoints”, people can be motivated to get involved in society. Since a college is an institution which provides higher education for students, it is essential to provide an environment which encourages students to express their diverse and unique ideas. If there are certain regulations of free speech, there is going to be a possibility of resulting in “the government officials have the power to censor and punish speech they do not like”. (Chemerinsky) From college campuses’ perspective, it is also important to protect those who are targeted by “vicious and demeaning” free speech as protecting the freedom of expressing own arguments. (Massaro, 211) There is a way to deal with protecting some students being offended, such as educating students how to respond hate speech.
To activate people’s participation in society, hate speech could be one of the motivations of people who want to protect “their group” from inappropriate judgments. “Nothing can be gained by exclusion.” It is true that some people can be offended by certain type of free speech such as hate speech, but just excluding offensive free speech cannot be a solution. For college campuses, it is better to leave free speech just how that is and educate students how to respond and react offensive free speech. Free speech is important not just for avoiding the public unified, but also for motivating people to participate.
Work Cited :
Massaro, Toni M. Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211 (1991), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol32/iss2/3 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. Hate Speech is Protected Free Speech, even on College Campuses (Yale University Press, 2017), https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/25/165248… (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Hyun (Rebuttal and Discussion Question):
Bolanle claims that college campuses have responsibility of creating better educational environment by regulating inappropriate free speech which has possibility of offending certain group of people such as insults or catcalls. She explains that hate speech can fall directly within the fighting words which is an exception to First Amendment protection. However, simply regulating certain topics of free speech in public cannot be a fundamental solution for a hate speech issue. From educational purpose of establishing college campuses, stable and peaceful educational environment is the first priority that college campuses have to keep, but, as an institution which provides higher education for the enrolled students, college campuses also have responsibility of giving diverse chances to let students know diverse thoughts and ideas. Some of “inappropriate” free speech can offend some students, but college campuses have to give them a chance to experience diverse free speech and teach them how to respond to it.
Bolanle also argues that we all have the right to choose what we listen to; courts have held that offensive speech may not be regulated in public forums such as streets where listener may avoid the speech by moving on. It is definitely true that we cannot avoid the speech that we are not willing to listen if that speech is being held in public. It will be better if “inappropriate” topic of speech is held only in non-public space from those who can be offended by that free speech. However, this is against the fundamental purpose of free speech. Free speech is originated from the purpose of expressing own thoughts and value in public without any pressure. If free speech starts to be regulated by places, that is not ultimate “free” speech. Any regulations toward free speech can ruin the original goal of free speech.
Question: We have emphasized the importance of expressing own thoughts and ideas without being controlled or regulated by certain censorship. In free speech, there is always possibility of getting offended by certain topics or offending certain group of people. People recently started to argue that there should be censorship about free speech in case certain group of people are offended. Should protecting someone from getting offended be prioritized or should protecting the freedom of expression for majority be prioritized?
Bolanle (Rebuttal and Discussion Question):