Hate Speech Should Not Be Restricted at Universities

Throughout history, the US Constitution has examined the issue of freedom of speech. In the first amendment, "Congress enacts any law, respects religious beliefs, prohibits free speech, deprives freedom of speech or press, or deprives the right of peaceful gatherings, And I will not petition the government to rectify indignation. " People are proudly adapting to one of the core values ​​of each citizen, but some Americans find themselves bound by the restrictions on the freedom of speech to express hatred speech.

An excellent Guardian article by Monday Julia Carrie Wong is investigating the impact of the growing liberal / leftistic desire for "Hate speech". It is forbidden to spread what they call "disgusting ideas" with their platform. As Wong correctly pointed out, "Many Americans are increasingly fond of restrictions on European style dislikes." Therefore, it is worth considering how these "European regulations" are actually functioning and how they will work against anyone.

There are two arguments to support freedom of speech. However, many people believe that freedom of speech should be restricted or limited in some cases. I am not talking about voluntary (courtesy) restrictions but speaking about involuntary restrictions. These limits include limitations on hatred, attack, confidentiality, utility, and authority. Some remarks may harm certain groups, especially the mainstream culture and those supported by the government. This aggressive remark may be told in good faith to reach the truth. It may not be the case. In either case, attacking this group is regarded as a bigger mistake than restricting freedom of speech. For example, a frank and open-cut comparison of sexual relations with Muhammad's 9-year-old girl and pedophile sexual relations is uncomfortable for many Muslims.

In this case, the call to restrict dislikes should not be required to be a comprehensive decrease in freedom of speech, but rather as a requirement for uniformity of grammar. There is only one clear government intervention: the threat of violence, harassment, etc. are the way the group can use their remarks to suppress other group's remarks. If these behaviors are related to existing power structures, they are likely to result in different costs of different kinds of speech, as it is often the case. For example, the impact on women and color people's career is publicly described as "unstable". Even though it is easy to start from the workplace, the threat is completely different from Caucasian.