Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech vs. Speaking Freely

Due to recent political events there has been a large surge of homophobic, racist, and sexist speech that either has gone unrecognized or unspoken previously. It is a stance by the far right that they should be able to say almost whatever they please - no matter how politically "incorrect" aka offensive it is because this type of speech is protected by the first Amendment. However what conservatives sometimes fail to recognize is that just because you are a minority in your thinking in certain situations or because there is societal backlash does not necessarily mean your right to free speech is being restricted. This topic is difficult to discuss in generalizations because every situation is different so I am going to focus in on a couple different recent events in the following paragraphs.

James Damore was an engineer at Google that was fired after writing a ten page anti-diversity article. In a statement to New York Times Damore claimed "I have the legal right to to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment..." Damore is right - he does have the legal right express whatever type of views and make any type of statements he would like and he continues to have that right but merely won't be from his office at google. Damore fails to realize that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting your speech - not your employer. You are not legally guaranteed a platform. If you say something at work that might offend your boss or other co-workers you DO run the risk of getting fired. It is similar to what Professor Anderson discussed in class. Although we have a right to free speech we are under her discretion in the classroom and the type of environment she wants to have for her students/lectures. Places of employment, social media, etc. are not different - you run the flight risk of people around you not liking what you say or people in charge not liking what you say and the potential consequences that might come along with it. 

Because there is a rise in speaking "politically incorrect" we also need to understand what that means for the general population. I believe that this type of speech is important to be able to speak freely so we are able to see, understand, and properly address it. Hate speech can be seen as more powerful by the speaker if they speak it privately amongst others that hold the same view. When they speak it amongst the general population then they realize how unfavorable their thinking/speech actually is. But just because someone is speaking offensively does not give the general population the right to react physically or with violence. A recent study found that one fifth of college undergrads believe that it is acceptable to use physical force  to silence a speaker who makes "offensive and harmful statements". I was extremely disappointed when I read this article (link provided below) because it demonstrates how far people are willing to go to silence others of opposing views. Although I don't agree with this type of speech I believe that it is an important asset for debate and it is important for young people to hear and know how to properly react to. To react to their words with violence is stooping to their level. As a younger generation - we need to do better. 



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.896c00aa7b38

Comments

  1. I really enjoyed this post because I do agree with you on your overall message that we must do what we can to address hate speech and violence and how they interact. However, there are significant things I would like to respectfully engage with here. The first is that you mentioned the "far right" and "conservatives" in your post, I personally lean more to the left than the right but I think it's important to stay neutral when discussing things like this because we're talking about individuals. The far left also has issues speaking in hate speech and regardless of political affiliation it is still an issue. Politically incorrect or hate speech, while it is protected, shuts down communication between parties, creates division and is a precursor to violence. By exposing our youth to hate speech regardless of political affiliation or intent is dangerous if there isn't context and understanding of where it's coming from. I think what is important in the public sphere is making sure arguments stay on topic, they have backing and warrants and stay respectful so ideas and beliefs can adequately be communicated.

    I completely agree with you on the idea that responding to the hate speech we encounter with violence is not the answer. However, I think what is more important is understanding that when hate speech is used regardless of where your intentions are at nothing will be accomplished. We have to transcend that in order to accomplish any kind of actual change. With that being said I do believe you're also right in the fact that we as a younger generation need to do better and focus on discourse instead of any sort of attack.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked your post about how you believe that it shouldn't be allowed for some people to say opressing and negative comments about another person because they are on a certain side when it comes to politics. However, I also do believe that this is a large generalization based on how you view the far right, due to media exposure. I consider my self a right side, leaning towards neutral in politics and cannot identify with the generalization you are saying about this group. I do not go around saying offensive things about other people, because I don't believe them to be true and I don't think that people won't hold me responsible for my words and actions.
      I agree with your stance that free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, to whoever you want, including in the classroom or at work. Those are the two places I spend a lot of my time, so I know how to behave and act accordingly, as do most people. Sometimes when you are in these social situations, its best to not say anything offensive, because you shouldn't be doing so in the first place or even in any social situations regardless if you are protected by the First Amendment or not. I agree that violence should never, under any circumstance be used against another person when it comes to hate speech. People will say things you don't like, but its important to try and tune those things out because violence will escalate and make matters worse.
      Really great blog post!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...