Free Speech vs the Right to Be Protected Against Harmful Hate Speech In Schools - Essay Example

Free speech vs the right to be protected against harmful hate speech in schools, businesses Abstract Freedom of speech is fast becoming an extremely controversial affair with different proponents and critics often arguing about it. This paper seeks to establish what exactly is freedom of speech / expression, what are the different arguments promoting it and criticizing. Moreover, the papers seek to define the boundaries within which freedom of expression / speech can be contained. Introduction Over the years, there has been growing conflict between different ideologies, social institutions, groups and individuals as pertaining to the promotion or limitation of the freedom of expression / speech. Although the freedom of speech is regarded as one of democracy’s most cherished values, critics of the freedom of speech argue that absolute freedom of expression can end up permitting anti- woman and often hurtful, racist messages which have been crafted with the main objective of victimizing people. What is Freedom of Expression / Speech Freedom of expression can loosely be described as the freedom for one to speak freely without any limitation or censorship whatsoever. The term is also synonymous with the term freedom of speech, and the two are often used interchangeably. The human right to freedom of expression is officially recognized under article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which adamantly states, that: “Each and every person has the right to obtain freedom of both expression and opinion; this right also includes the basic human right to freedom allowing one to hold opinions without any interference whatsoever and to engage in the impartation, reception and search for both ideas and information through any of the available media. This is done regardless of frontiers(Heumann, Church & Redlawsk, 1997).” Legislators forming the U.S. Government recognized the vital role that the freedom of expression plays and were quick to make what is popularly termed as “The First Amendment”. This amendment was created with the aim of “prohibiting the creation of any law adversely limiting the establishment of religion, the continuous impediment of religion, any limitations on the innate human right of freedom of speech, the promoting of any laws seen to infringe on the freedom of the press, blocking the free and peaceable assembly of people or prohibiting the entreating for a legislative redress of any grievances experienced by the citizens.” Arguments Supporting the Restrictions of the Freedom of Expression Though the freedom of expression is officially recognized as an important right under the bill of rights, there are several arguments that currently advocate for its limitation. As Charles Lawrence categorically points, insults that happen to have racial undertones do not deserve any protection under the First Amendment. This can mainly be attributed to the fact that the perpetrator’s primary intention is not geared towards the initialization of any dialogue or the realization of any truth, but the perpetrator’s main intention is to injure the victim(Heumann, Church & Redlawsk, 1997). Though most of the courts in America are keen to hold that offensive speech, is not to be regulated in any public forums such as streets where the listening party if free to move on and hence avoid the speech, they are keen to ensure the regulation of such speech in the event that the speech happens to invade the privacy of one’s home or the unwilling listener cannot in any way be able to avoid the speech. Putting up racist fliers, graffiti and posters in common rooms such as bathrooms and dormitories will clearly be deemed as a contravention of these regulations. In colleges and campuses, minority students have a right to be able to move anywhere freely and should not have to be required to constantly remain in their rooms in an attempt to try and stem any racial assault on their persons (Heumann, Church & Redlawsk, 1997). Lawrence argues that any attempt made towards the engagement of any debate about racist speech and the First Amendment without a person’s full understanding of the potentially harmful nature of doing that will risk causing the First Amendment to become an instrument to be used in dominating others, as opposed to viewing it as a fundamental vehicle in liberation(Heumann, Church & Redlawsk, 1997). In the late 1940’s, about 10 screen writers where jailed in the United States for their refusal to testify before a congressional committee. This was done despite their attempts to cite the First Amendment in their defense. Most of the civil liberties lawyers in the country were unwilling to take up the case and argue it in court since the speech concerned the Communist Party(Brownmiller, 2012). According to arguments put across by Susan Brownmiller, in recent times, the principle of protecting unpopular political speech has been gradually strengthening. Brownmiller points out that extremist movements and ideologies such as the American Nazi Party have recently found themselves benefiting from the tireless and extremely dedicated work of the American Civil Liberties Union(Brownmiller, 2012). In 1934, a debate to ban James Joyce’s Ulysses, which was thought, to be pornographic in nature was brought before the court. In the end, the book was not banned and instead was upheld as a beautiful work of literature which exhibited social value. Later on, “Memoirs of Fanny Hill” and “Chatterley’s Lover” were also adjudged by the courts as not obscene. Brownmiller argues that the books fail to accurately portray female sexuality though it is now impossible to ban these books(Brownmiller, 2012). The feminist objection to any form of pornography whatsoever is solidly based on the belief that pornography is a symbol that represents the hatred of women. Pornography is deemed as having the sole intention of dehumanizing, humiliating and degrading the female body with the core aim of providing erotic pleasure and stimulation. Feminists are unanimously opposed to the ongoing media presentation portraying the female body being mutilated, raped, tortured, murdered, bound or even stripped all in the name of free speech and commercial entertainment(Brownmiller, 2012). Though some constitutional theorists such as Justice William O. Douglas have constantly maintained the incorrect notion that the enactment of any obscenity law will result in a grave abridgment of the constitutional right of free speech. Others theorists such as Justice Earl Warren are maintaining that when the First Amendment was initially created, its main intention was not to promote its use in the protection of obscenity(Brownmiller, 2012). Arguments Opposing the Limitation of the Freedom of Expression The freedom of Expression is closely related to other rights that seem to support each other. These mutually supporting rights include freedom of assembly, thought, right to vote and association (Jacoby, 2005). One of the major arguments in support of the freedom of Expression is that unlimited freedom of expression is a critical part in the search for truth. According to John Stuart Mill, when persons are keen to engage in open and often public discussions with each person putting across their own ideas and arguments, the result of this process will help in the eventual discovery of truth. After all the competing ideas have been put forth, the jury of public opinion will be free to deliver the most suitable verdict and hence the version of truth it finds that it most prefers (Hargreaves, 2002, p.302). It is also argued that the freedom of expression is a principal conduit for the establishment of a democratic government. When information is allowed to flow freely, it is seen to influence and inform public debates. People are seen to be more willing to agree to the decisions that they deem to disagree with if they are in principle given the opportunity to try and influence them. The freedom of expression is seen to act as an impediment to the abuse of power by officials in government. This is as a result of its creation of a conduit via which the errors and malpractices that occur in the administration of justice and governance in a given country can be exposed (Simms, 1999). Conclusion As seen from the arguments put forth in this paper, though the Freedom of Expression is seen to be a key component in the modern day democratic process, its unlimited use is seen to cause more harm than good as it creates a loophole where absolute freedom of expression can end up permitting anti- woman and often hurtful and racist messages which have been crafted with the main objective of victimizing people. With this in mind, legislation should be formed that will seek to regulate the misuse of the Freedom of Expression by persons advocating for racist tendencies and promoting anti- woman messages (Simms, 1999). Bibliography: Brownmiller S., 2008. Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Paw Prints. Brownmiller S., 2012. AntiPorno. Retrieved on 6th October 2012, from http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/susanbrownmiller/html/antiporno.html. Hargreaves, R., 2002. The first freedom: A history of free speech. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton. Heumann M., Church W. T., Redlawsk D., 1997. Hate speech on campus : cases, case studies and commentary. Boston : Northeastern University Press. Jacoby S., 2005. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. Henry Holt and Company. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [1999] 3 WLR 328,337. Read More