While it is tempting to understand why Walter Chaplinsky was arrested and most people can understand the annoyance his speech must have caused, it was a law that should have been repealed.
Freedom of speech is such a fundamental right ingrained for more than 250 years that it needs to be protected even when the majority of listeners do not like or agree with what is being said.
Another case, in 1952 brings to light a different issue with regards to freedom of speech. In that case the leader of a white supremacy group was arrested for distributing literature claiming that the Negro race lacked virtue and other important characteristics.
While freedom of speech should be protected, it is also important not to allow hate filled speeches to be distributed in writing that are filled with non-provable information that could ultimately harm a group of people because it may be taken as fact.
The Ultimate Decision
Case law on students' freedom of speech reveals a limited but constitutional precedent for hate speech regulations within the academic environment. Regulations restricting other forms of student speech have been upheld under the special characteristics argument, which emphasizes universities' liabilities as learning institutions. Under this argument, students are considered captive audiences, thus universities can legally act to avoid disruptions to the educational environment, which hate speech can do (Russell, 1997)."
As much as most individuals will agree that certain speech is hurtful to others society by and large has the ability to correct itself by ignoring or shunning those who insist on voicing opinions that are unpopular or hateful and college students are capable of the same shunning which in turn brings pressure to the speech giver to cease and desist.
We cannot pick and choose which part of the constitution we are going to protect as the entire document embodies what the founding fathers intended when they put it together.
The exception to free speech should always of course address threats to do someone bodily harm however, this leaves the arena of free speech and enters a criminal intent and the desire to take away one's constitutionally...
Free Speech Rights of College and University Faculty This is a paper that outlines Free Speech Rights issues at academic institutions and argues why it is important to preserve it. It has 16 sources. The freedom of speech is something that has to be preserved no matter what the medium of communication may be, and this is because members of society may be greatly disadvantaged if exceptions are made. As compared to the
Hate Speech on Campus Colleges and universities have always portrayed themselves as the bastions of free speech and expression. However, in the growing diversity of college communities, more universities struggle to maintain the balance between protecting free speech and providing a welcoming learning environment for all its constituents. As a result, many campuses have initiated speech codes, intended to protect people and groups from hate speech, which is often accompanied by violence.
After the initial clash, police arrested Elton Cox and charged him with "disturbing the peace," (the Ovex Project, "Cox v. Louisiana"). In 1965, the Court decided that none of the student's activities were criminal. They were rightfully engaging in their right to free speech. However, cases like the 1966 decision of the Adderley v. Florida case (the Oyex Project, "Adderley v. Florida"), represented the unsupportive view of the Court towards
Student Searches, Free Speech & Expression, and Privacy in the Wired Age Student searches and in-school discipline for off-campus conduct Free Speech and Expression on and off campus Privacy in the wired age on and off campus. (Facebook, twitter, myspace, blogs, cellphones) What are a students' constitutional rights when it comes to searches and seizures, on and off campus discipline, free speech, expression, and privacy in the wired age when on and off campus?
Delgado further argues, Rules against hate speech, homophobic remarks and misogyny serve both symbolic and institutional values... It has been argued that such prohibitions operate in derogation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, but that amendment already is subject to dozens of exceptions -- libel, defamation, words of conspiracy or threat, disrespectful words uttered to a judge or police officer, irrelevant or untrue words spoken in a
speech of a public institution's faculty member to be protected under the Pickering/Connickline of cases, what criteria must be satisfied? Do these criteria suitably balance the interests of faculty members and the institution in the higher education context? There are really two key principles that must be satisfied. The first is that the court determines whether the speech in question hinges on a matter of public concern. If it does,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now