Exploring Free Speech and Hate Speech Dynamics on College Campuses in the Digital Age

The boom and adoption of digital technology and the rising age of social media have significantly revolutions human interactions, mainly how campus students express their opinions. Free speech in colleges has been, for a long time, a contentious topic. Advancements in communication technologies such as social media, college students have an even larger audience to share their provocative opinions (The New York Times Opinion 2). Social media is one of the most abused platforms, and this trait poses numerous challenges to how hate speech can be mitigated. Therefore, there is a growing need for students to define what constitutes a free speech and what constitutes a hate speech and, as much as possible, be ambassadors of responsible free speech.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

When the world is dominated by technology, the definition of what was termed "free speech" about two decades ago has significantly acquired new meaning, including characteristics associated with the current society. For instance, in our country, for a long time, free speech was often defined based on what constituted Freedom of speech, which is a constitutional right. However, Freedom of speech is determined based on the First Amendment right, which states that Freedom of speech includes the right to "not speak, to use certain words or phrases termed offensive to convey a political message, engage in symbolic speech, advertise both products and commercial services" (United States Courts). The US Court also acknowledges that Freedom of speech does not include the right to "inciting actions that would result in harming others, students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event, advocate for illegal activities at a school-sponsored event, or perform actions – destroy- as anti-war protests" (United States Courts).

Based on the above definition of Freedom of speech, professor Erwin Chemerinsky in an interview with Natalie Shulter highlights that hate speech is a protected speech according to the first amendment (2). For many students, hate speech is not entirely focused on an individual's right to the constitutional first amendment right but the kind of harm created through speech. For many students, the damage that comes with hate speech has more adverse effects and a long-lasting impact than the advantages. In the article, "The Free Speech-Hate Speech Trade-Off," Erwin acknowledges that these studies are right to make their claims. However, he contests how they respond to the so-called requests, arguing that while the hate speech codes adopted by most colleges hurt every group, they are meant to safeguard. It is for this, among other reasons, that hate speech needs to be protected.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and that is why it needs to be protected. However, the growing trend in using social media as a platform to "express" and "protect" fellow students from hate speech by giving one's opinion contradicted this fundamental right. Eric Foner also added that free speech is often defined as merely any opinion against the war, political view, or crisis. In most cases, the so-called free speech results in hate and even provoke violence (Foner). However, the Foner ignored to address how such "free speech" result in war in the first place. War results from conflicts of interest, and these conflicts arise from a lack of agreed terms often conveyed through speech.

Unlike school-sponsored events where the administration has the authority to take immediate action to stop or one a student when they start using offensive worlds or obscene speech. Such platforms as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram do not strictly control what the student can say. As a result, as students intend to protect their fellow students from hate speech, the uncontrolled environment often creates room for students to use offensive, provocative, and sometimes speech that may provoke hatred. Opinions. However, if there was no intention to encourage hate or harm, it should not be punished. Instead, Erwin suggests alternative approaches can be implemented to solve the matter, so long as the speech did not mean any harm, it was not very respectful.

In the article, Shulter raises a critical question that has a significant contribution to the contrasting opinions of what is and what ought to be hate speech. There is no constitutional protection to "true threat" or for harassment (3). Drawing from the universities and colleges that have adopted hate speech codes in the 1980s and early 1980s, the move without a doubt was well-intentioned. Unfortunately, the federal court later declared that the regulations were unconstitutional because they were vague (3). The court argued that there could be no speech that "stigmatized or demeaned" anyone based on their gender or race, yet during the period, over 20 black students from Michigan were charged with racist speech, and no white student was punished for racist speech. It is a result of such reason as to why speech should be defined and protected. It is a potent weapon that has a positive impact and also a very severe negative consequence. Often what is termed as disrespectful or hurtful speech results in conflict; that's why it is essential to know what to say and what to hold back.

Lack of education on the history and progress of Freedom of speech is one major contributor to college hate speech cases' growth rates. However, as students equate free speech to racism and police brutality when talking about society's ills' safety, students have to be careful of what they say and how they use these words. As much as identity is fundamental for every college student, especially in the expansion of the countercultural identities, Erwin argues that it "forms of expression that challenge traditional religion, prevailing social mores, familiar lifestyle choices, inherited views about sexuality, or historical gender roles."(4).

Luckily there is hope that even with the increasing adoption of social media and the internet in the modern generation, students will begin to associate free speech as a tool to protect the vulnerable rather than associate with the vitriol of the internet. The moment a speech becomes hurtful and targets certain people, that automatically should be limited and stopped. Campus speakers who intentionally spread hate speech intending to hurt a specific group should have limited or not given a chance since the purpose is to spread hatred. School administrations and campus officials also need to define the kind of social standards they want to be established in the colleges and campus. The campus officials also need to be aware of the authority and power they possess, and the role they ought to play in condemning hate speech.

The students can also react to offensive speech and hold demonstrations. They can comfortably limit the kind of speech they want to hear. There are free speech places, but the audience has the right to walk away if they feel the speech is offensive in a way. As used in the article, the term harm shows that the speech is not in good taste, and the audience was not pleased by it. Offend is also used to mean that it was also not taken week by the audience, but it is not as hurtful as harm. Free speech is where anyone can say anything they want at particular joints, and no action can be taken on them because they are allowed. However, if they come to your residence and utter hurtful words, then that automatically becomes a case for invading one's privacy. Hate speech does not necessarily mean it is evil; it could be protected words that mean no harm.

In conclusion, It is important to note the line between free speech and hate speech is fragile, and one can find themselves on the wrong side of the coin from just posting a mere tweet or photo targeting a particular group of people in the name expression your opinion. The constitution has done its part to define what right is included or not included in the First Amendment right. Thus, a speech should be protected. If it is offensive, there should be a better way of solving it, not necessarily through provocative, disrespectful, harmful, or vulgar language to get your point communicated. Instead, students should be ambassadors of responsible free speech, for they are society's brains.

Work cited

The New York Times Opinion. The Free Speech-Hate Speech Trade-Off. September 13, 2017. September 30, 2020.

United States Courts. What Does Free Speech Mean? n.d. September 30, 2020. <https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does>.