Blog#8-WmCampbell

Blog #8-William Campbell


The First Amendment of our constitution guarantees each person’s right to freedom of expression, and most citizens consider this one of the cornerstones of our system of government. This freedom, though, can at times be a double edge sword. Certain views and beliefs and the way they are presented publicly may cause hardship and pain to others at some point. This issue runs headlong into another of our rights as free citizens, the legal right to be free from verbal abuse or harassment. Where do we draw the line and who defines what is or is not acceptable speech without undermining one’s guarantee to free expression? At what point might censorship be considered to curb offensive speech, or can censorship even be considered at all? These issues and questions have long been points of contention on university and college campuses across the nation.
Present law allows public academic institutions to limit the “time, place, and manner of speech.”(Silverglate 123) This means that it is not appropriate to hold a loud protest during sleeping hours in a dorm hall. Still, any regulations prohibiting students to speak or requiring them to speak only from places where they will not be seen or heard are considered unconstitutional. Also, broad content-based speech codes have universally been struck down by the courts.(Silverglate 123) The question of hate speech protection under the First Amendment is often in the fore front of campus concerns. Richard Delgado writes in an opinion article in “USA Today” that “Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences.”(127) Because of this, Delgato feels hate speech should not have First Amendment protection. During the past decade, schools have designated “free speech zones” on campuses in response to legal criticism of campus content speech codes. While this might seem a balanced solution to the problem, Harvey A. Silverglate, in his essay, “Muzzling Free Speech,” notes that “There is a growing recognition, especially by students and civil libertarians, that our entire country is a free speech zone, and our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.”(124) Free speech zones regulations have most recently come and gone and have often been simply rephrased in the face of multi-pronged challenges. What remains constant in all of this is the desire of schools to put regulations in place that will both protect free speech and satisfy their perceived moral obligation to create a respectful learning environment.
To which solution do higher education administrators turn? Certainly, censorship might stop speech in the moment but does nothing to change the attitudes or opinions behind the speech. Also, censure still remains unconstitutional. “Free speech zones” as a solution has come under attack and soon might go the way of content based speech codes. What is next? Denise Chaykun, in her editorial, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More,” feels the speech protection granted by the First Amendment is sufficient as it stands. She states, “Allowing free speech always sucks for someone,” (132) and she ends by defining what she perceives are the only available choices with regard to this issue. “We can choose to protect feelings or ideas. Hurt feelings can be mended by ideas, but lost ideas might never be recovered.”(132) Free speech, whether kind or unkind, supportive or hurtful, usually creates a discourse from which we can learn. In this time of carefully engineered “politically correct” and empathic responses to issues of the day, regulations abound, often sparsely disguised as thought reform. Perhaps a direct response, as written by Don Henley of “The Eagles” in his song of the same title, might sometimes work for those thought to be victims of free speech. He simply states, “Get over it!”


Works Cited

Denise Chaykun, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More.” Counterweight, March 27, 2003.

Richard Delgato, “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated.” Insight on the News, June 24, 1996.

Harvey A. Silverglate, “Muzzling Free Speech,” The National Law Review, October 7, 2002.