Freedom of Speech - Assignment Example

FREEDOM OF SPEECH Freedom of speech Introduction The term freedom of speech generally refers to the right to express or communicate ones views and thoughts. This term is used synonymously at times but however, it is connected with any act of trying to receive, find and provide information as well as thoughts regardless of the channel used. (Melkonian, 2012) However, offence principle is a terminology that we use in order to expand the limitations of free speech over a wider range and also to ban the modes of expressions that the society considers offensive and of special interests to individuals and the groups. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes freedom of expression as one of the human rights under article 19 (Jeffreys, 2011). This article states that every individual is entitled to the right of holding opinions without any interference. It adds that every individual has the right to express him or herself freely and this shall include the freedom to find, acquire and provide thoughts and ideas of any kind despite the frontiers, which may be either by word of mouth, in print or in writing, as an art work or maybe as a result of any other media associated with the choice. Article 19 claims how the workout of those rights provides special responsibilities and duties and could be subject to certain restrictions while necessary or the regard of the rights of other individuals as well as their reputation or security associated with nations safety measures or maybe associated with order public or of public wellness as well as morals. Existence of the problem Freedom of expression of freedom of speech is a fundamental right in any learning institution such as this college. There are some norms that constrain the right of expression signify that students’ argument may not be properly covered up even in instances of unexpected emergencies. There is a poor link between students’ democracy and freedom of speech. Democracy in any academic community can never meet its essential ideal should those who assume positions of power be in a position to manipulate the students by stifling criticism and holding essential information. This has been noted during the various school activities such as the internal and external conferences. There has always been a dispute with the administration regarding the individuals who should participate. Students argue that more adaptable and fairly stable academic community can only be achieved if the principle regarding open discussion is put in place, and not just denying those who are democratically elected. Freedom of expression follows an accountability process and it has a substantial influence regarding the quality of governance and administration in a college set up. The accountability and voice within an institution can be thought as the scope for which the students are in a position to participate in selecting their own governing body as well as the liberty involving expression and association with the administration. The administration should not deny the students the right to elect those whom they think are capable of improving their welfare. With enhanced communication, individuals and even groups within an institution improves social interactions, thus forming good relationship with one another and the authorities, church groups and church leaders, and more so the community around. People originating from different beliefs and backgrounds utilize the value of free speech in their passionate dialogues and hence they do not belittle one another. An institution of learning such as a college ought to be a market place where ideas compete, and this is what sharpens intellectual vitality. This can never happen when faculty members or even students are timid of expressing their ideas which could even be unpopular even to the general public or disfavoured by the college administrators (Dudley, 2005). There is an emerging issue whereby free speech is being confined to small zones within the campus. This is a great threat to freedom of speech when the administration sets codes for what may be said or not and even goes to the extent of punishing speech on a case by case basis. There is violation of religious liberty in some institution whereby one is limited to the choice of faith to follow. Some students are punished and even condemned for intolerance and even hate speech just because of expressing their religious beliefs in public. Every stakeholder within an institution of higher learning has the obligation and freedom to reason willingly without any coercion or undue influence over his or her believes. There is lack of existence of liberty where one is pushed to conform to the viewpoint of officials. However in some institutions, students are expected to share similar attitudes on these issues failure to which they face disciplinary charges. This violates the sanctity of conscience. There are detrimental effects arise in learning institutions that seem to condone with intolerance and hostility to those individuals whose opinions differ with those of the majority. These include low self-esteem and confidence by new members of the community. This will always destroy the fragile civility (Dudley, 2005). Some campuses have adopted the strategy of banning speeches that may express homophobia, racism and speeches that diminish ethnicity, together with forbidding behavioural conduct hat harasses. All institutions must react accordingly in response of verbal assault or even the use or hateful language. Several reasons have been offered in response to this banning of barbaric speeches. Academic progress may suffer fears, conflicts and tensions that are spawned by insults and use of slur language. This brings about a strange environment that is inimical to learning. A college or university that asserts authority to proscribe ideas, sexist epithets, both racial along with ethnic slurs or even homophobic insults is bound to fail in its mission. Claim of policy and argument for solution. Administrators should seek favourable resolutions for those individuals whose rights are violated and also for students in higher education who are affected by the practice of censorship within our institutions. It is very normal that an institution of higher learning has a judicial body for settling any cases that arises within an institution especially regarding students and other faculty members. This judicial body or rather the disciplinary committee is the one that provides equitable procedures while determining whether one is guilty or innocent. Both the accuser must be given a chance to express their freedom of speech and be listened so as to provide unbiased and accurate judgements. These procedures are bound to be consistent and also fair for both the accuser and the person being accused. This is in other words referred as the due process. In trying to seek for the distinction between the manner of speech and regulation of the speech content, we find it untenable in practise since offensive styles and mind-jarring phrases may have been specifically chosen for their power of expression. Thus we are justified to say that the border between style and substance is just too uncertain to sustain any pressure that may arise towards the disciplinary or judicial rules that are aimed at regulating speech. An institution of higher learning sets a risky course if it intends to seek the difference between the speeches of high value and those of low value, or if it attempts to seek which groups should be protected by restricting the speech of others. The colleges should also have concrete reasons as to why they shield some targets of distasteful language and not others. The college should adopt a range of measures that reprimand conduct and deeds instead of speech. These include taking measures that defy destruction of property, harassments and physical intimidation, boycotting and causing disruptions of college activities. Such rules should be well documented to create awareness and administrators must be ready to use them in partiality to consents directed to speech (Jeffreys, 2011). A college should adopt better means to educate on how to instil more understanding to students on how to deter disgusting speeches and conduct. These may include introduction of course units or even co-curricular activities that will boost students to condemn any manifestations related to intolerance of spoken words or deeds. It’s the role of all members of a faculty to raise a voice that will condemn acts of intolerance and spread the message of civility which is a hallmark that distinguishes educated ladies and gentlemen and setting good examples. The students governing body also have a demanding body in regulating the students’ behaviour against the tort of defamation (Melkonian, 2012). The leaders are entitled to setting high standards and should struggle to eliminate the uncivil speech inflicts. Conclusion There are fundamental concepts that enshrine free speech and not hate speech. The tort of defamation is an exception to freedom of speech. Spoken defamation or rather, slander, could also take the form of sign languages and gestures. This leads to censorship. Freedom of speech should go hand in hand with responsibility too and can be one of the most cherished values if well utilized. It broadly defines bans over disruptive speeches and has overreached the vague antidiscrimination policies that restrict expression of thoughts. Some religious groups and also political groups which may possibly exist even within the institutions of higher learning. References Dudley, W. (2005). Freedom of speech. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press. Melkonian, H. (2012). Freedom of speech and society. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. Jeffreys, H. (2011). Freedom of association + freedom of speech = freedom of the media?. Glob. Media J., 2(1). doi:10.5789/2-1-41 Read More