Download file to see previous pages...
Victims of hate speech suffered from emotional, as well as psychological pains, and as a result, various institutions took up action by way of creating hate speech campus codes. These codes were meant to limit speech that was both hateful as well as harmful to people (Garrett 1). However, the courts systematically began striking down the policies in speech, stating how they were unconstitutional.
From a student’s perspective, hate speech is unfair harassment or treatment either verbally or non-verbally directed towards an individual, or group of persons based on their color, race, nationality, religious beliefs, age, and sex, with the sole purpose of creating offensiveness and intimidation for the persons involved.
Although there has been a significant increment in the number of hate speech codes within colleges, as well as universities, the increase in hate speech occurrences across the U.S is unbearable. Although hate speech codes endeavor to create a safer environment that is politically correct within college campuses by instituting principles as well as guidelines for students to adhere to, they are somewhat ineffective because they are merely trying to cover up hate speech (Gould 73). Various campuses enforce repressive as well as biased speech codec, and under these codes, all groups of persons of integrity risk persecution from school staff. These speech codes make it punishable for students to talk about or even distribute resources concerning issues that are contrary to dominant beliefs within the campus, of which could be mostly secular as well as politically correct in nature. Nevertheless, there has never been any known case whereby a college’s speech has remained unchanged after a courtroom challenge. The present generation of speech codes tends to come by way of students conduct and email policies that ban invasive communication, statements of diversity that have provisions for
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
It also involves the surveillance, supervision and control of information or ideas that are promulgated in the society. Censorship has always been a hot topic of debate all over the world. It has remained a topic of heated discussions over the course of history.
The First Amendment effectively guarantees free speech, freedom of the press and religion. The constitutional right to free speech gives us the freedom to think and express those thoughts without governmental reproach. Without the free speech, America would be a much different place.
While trying his best to make sense of the lecture, he became frustrated and yelled “Fuck history. I hate history and all this bullshit. I don’t even know why we need to learn this shit. I am damn sure that our government is bunch of corrupt fools.” Entire class burst into laughter except our history teacher.
hip is far more complicated than one person refusing to let another read or watch or listen to something. The sad, sorry history of the protests against the making and the release of The Last Temptation of Christ should stand as a shining example of how attempts at censorship almost always result in the opposite of the intended effect in the short run, though in the long run the intentions of those who desired to suppress the expression of free speech ultimately were realized.
The new American settlers brought with them a desire for democracy and openness. They left behind a history of tyranny and official control of information. Using this experience as their guide, the constitutional fathers wrote into their new Constitution a Bill of Rights, which contained the First Amendment.
While these notions were contradicted in 2004 as:
The first notion on media censorship which I will discuss about relates to the infamous director Michael Moore famous for a film on Columbine high school massacre, his epic Fahrenheit 9/11. Its story revolves around the US president.
ve topics, harmful behaviors or inconvenient practices in which these practices are not allowed by the government, media outlet or any controlling body composed of the influential people in a community such as church leaders, advocates or non-government organizations. It
come to conclusion that there is no “crime of speech” either, if we are free to express out thoughts (which we are, according to the 1st Amendment).
With the freedom of speech, we are given the right to lawfully say whatever we think should be said, even if it is not the