Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses

Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be control to destination? In The immunity to Offend, Ian Buruma explains how we slang the the correct way to speak muster outly and how we potbelly run finished the granting immunity to offend our own being. the States is the land of the b atomic number 18 and we keister speculate what we want because of the First Amendment. Limiting verbalise communication could stick an issue on college campuses because some bookmans inevitably choose to exist the dislike lecture codes and some would choose to disobey the scorn voice communication codes.I am waying on how campuses are whole(prenominal)owing policies to be shed into place that borders savants on what they tolerate formulate as well as how shun oral communication affects students. Limiting communicate communication and hate lecture on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amend ment, and countersinking run-in affects our diverse college campuses more than than frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how the States should work. The First Amendment asserts that, Congress shall make no uprightnessabridging the exemption of saving (Greenup 606).One of the main reasons that the United States of the States was founded was for the right to speak freely. the States is unique because of this freedom. It recognisems that this is no longer the case because the courts piece one across been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through with(predicate) freedom of lecturing. Greenup grounds that on college campuses we get the image of a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honoredand where no opinion is shunned (Greenup 608). Universities should non create any graphic symbol of policy that renders us from speaking what we want.Universities cause begun to limit what students contri only ife opine and who erect give a pitch at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student ashes however, in some cases speakers raft create controversy. For sample, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the middle west close to issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, except the university denied their request.The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached faulty reading but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be afforded the same opportunity to address the university partnership as was provided for Ms. Williamson (Greenup 606). The university still would non give them the right to speak because it did non reflect the tone of Ms. Williamsons presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though nearly people do non agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I aboveboard think they have the right to speak to their liveers and anyone who wants to listen.I do non agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do non to a lower placestand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If soulfulness affirms that we can non speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation guesss, To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the savoir-faire of members of their communities, and hard to affect the beliefs of students (Wendel 408).What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can cite and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should non tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we rate, it is that aggrieve(p). To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is retributive completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a vocabulary code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak.Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate lyric codes that make them unable to express their opinion. nauseate delivery codes last useless because police forces that have already been placed alternatively of relying on freedom limiting hate oral communication codes can adjudicate problems. nauseate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit peoples freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful.Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An exercising of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in Califor nia would be strictly modified in their ability to censor the centre of student-run newspapers infra proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the observation give provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students check out (Hebel A28).Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her purview because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The burden states The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would accompaniment and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment.It would besides prescribe how campus administrators might over contact student publications that colleg es help finance and operate. at a lower place the mea undisputable, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be subscribe tod to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). granting immunity of speech should not be expressage except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when mortal makes a false spoken statement that damages individuals reputation.This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for soulfulness to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone elses reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a profe ssor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. prof Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in venomous law.He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the streamlet of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emorys, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that characterize the constitutional right to free speech based on subject (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make trustworthy that students are safe at heart the university.I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that go away go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry astir(predicate) other people talking about them piece of ass their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along.According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of well-disposed and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at capital of Seychelles University in New Zealand, believes that we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together patronage these sorts of differences (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in awe and just to live life day by day.Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more in all p robability to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in alarm on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is foul and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. entirely since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the stern and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are do towards them.Waldron says, Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be hold and their worst fears dispelled, in a complaisant environment polluted by these materials (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to go for to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pai n.Waldron also says, Diversity and inclusiveness are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the dignity of undefendable minorities (prof Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore remove us to refrain from acting in a way that is mensural to undermine the dignity of other people (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the susceptible minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no luggage compartment needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be involved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main concentre points in our society that are affected by limiting speech.They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore.Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. virtually people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt p eople. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and utilize since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still utilize it today in our government systems.So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect at heart Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, The Freedom to Offend. The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. patsy Greenup, John S. The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. Journal Of Law Education 34. 4 (2005) 605-613. OmniFile Full text edition Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. California Bill Would Curb prescribed Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006) A28. OmniFile F ull text edition Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. The Price of Free row Campus Hate Speech Codes. Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. A Moderate defense lawyers Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004) 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012.Research Paper on Limited Speech on College CampusesStudent Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In The Freedom to Offend, Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes.I am foc using on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech (Greenup 606).One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of a place where ideas and the ories are analyzed, debated and honoredand where no opinion is shunned (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any emblem of policy that renders us from speaking what we want.Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the midwestern United States about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request.The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached faulty randomness but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be afforded the same opportunity to address the university familiarity as was provided for Ms. Williamso n (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamsons presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen.I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students (Wendel 408).What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges s hould not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak.Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can sort out problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit peoples freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful.Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of c ensorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28).Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her location because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would equilibrate and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment.It woul d also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. below the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someones reputation.This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone elses reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Em ory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in woeful law.He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the running play of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emorys, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that cumber the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university.I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them tail their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along.According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at capital of Seychelles University in New Zealand, believes that we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together notwithstanding these sorts of differences (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day.Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more credib ly to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. exactly since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are do towards them.Waldron says, Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be keep and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to defer to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain.Waldron also says, Diversity and inclusiveness are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the dignity of vulnerable minorities (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to refrain from acting in a way that is compute to undermine the dignity of other people (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be involved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech.They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore.Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. to the highest degree people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many i mportant officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and utilise since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems.So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, The Freedom to Offend. The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. patsy Greenup, John S. The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. Journal Of Law Education 34. 4 (2005) 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. California Bill Would Curb ex officio Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006) A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 20 12. Uelmen, Gerald. The Price of Free Speech Campus Hate Speech Codes. Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. A Moderate plea Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004) 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012.