Freedom of Speech: Can Liberty Be Limited - Research Paper Example

Freedom of Speech: Can Liberty Be Limited? Protection of free speech on campus questions the protection of speech that could be insensitive, rude, or harmful. Opinions that divide people fall into this category, which can include different views, religions, or racism. Free speech, seems to be a very plain and straightforward term, where free means free—otherwise, it be called limited speech, even if the limits were small. The answer to this dilemma is that free speech should stay free, while hate and insensitivity should be solved with education and active debate in society.

Charles Lawrence, in “On Racist Speech”, recognizes that in the spirit of civil liberty speech should probably be unregulated—however, he goes on to point out that this is only a surface opinion. “If the purpose of the First Amendment is to foster the greatest amount of speech, racial insults disserve that purpose,” says Lawrence. He says that racist speech is not meant to “discover truth or initiate dialogue but to injure the victim”, indicating that he believes free speech needs to have a positive value.

He uses the example of university campuses that restrict racist speech in private areas such as dormitories, but refuse to restrict that speech in areas considered public forums such as outdoor areas on campus. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus,” Derek Bok uses the example of Confederate flags hung in Harvard dormitory windows, and the swastika flag displayed as a protest. Bok explains how limiting the free expression of these students creates more controversy and attempts to push the limits, and can eventually lead to regulation of speech.

Bok sees more value in ignoring hateful speech and instead focusing on educating students and society. He says that “no community will become humane and caring by restricting what its members can say”. Bok’s argument seems stronger, as it is more supportive of liberty without moral bias but also points out that changing the law only creates more restrictions without actually solving the problem of racist thought. Lawrence is for using the law to silence racist speech, or at least punish it when it refuses to remain silent, and simply seems like it is arming minorities to fight back rather than disarm the oppressors.

It seems obvious which approach deals with the real problem, and which simply bottles up hate and isolates it in a way that is almost equally oppressive. Also, bringing more restrictions to society would not improve the people and their opinions, it would only create more barriers. Making some speech illegal recognizes and points out that hate exists, but doesn’t make it change. The law should serve the purpose of protecting liberties, and regardless of how responsible, friendly, or respectful the people under that law may be.

The solution to racist speech should not be in creating laws that make potential perpetrators ask themselves if it is legal to say something, but instead should be a communal, cultural, and societal movement for tolerance that makes each generation ask whether or not they want to say something. The second approach is a more fundamental solution that will have long lasting effects, just as a cultural change in opinion about the lack of sense in racial segregation has been much more powerful than laws that simply prohibit segregation.

Hateful speech is still free speech, and limiting racially oriented speech is an end to free speech. Furthermore, this sort of law increases society’s fear about saying something offensive, to the point that minorities become oversensitive and would seek to punish others for comments that involve no poor intention. It is better to maintain complete freedom and focus on education than to try and force morals into the law where it is not black and white. Realistically, cases of racist speech would have to be considered individually, as it would be extremely difficult to create a law that makes clear what is acceptable and what is not.

When society has to think about whether or not they have the right to say something, and very carefully, then there is a lack of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should not be judged by the content of the words being good or bad. Even if speech is not helping to give progress to society, it does not mean it is not worth hearing. This would restrict speech to being only positive, and only in the opinion of some greater judge. The law should not judge whether speech is valuable or positive, but instead should be neutral to all speech because there is no way to be sure that the judgment is always correct.

Again, this would take away freedom of speech. Overall, Lawrence and Bok both point out that there is something to be protected. For Lawrence, it is minorities and their equal opportunity, while for Bok it is the fundamental liberties of all members of society to speak their mind regardless of how others perceive their opinions. Lawrence’s approach requires an extreme amount of oversight and regulation, which makes it a poor alternative to Bok’s support for the continuing support of free speech with minimal limits and a societal effort to fix itself without the strong hand of the law.