Free speech is defined by as “the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.” In the article, the argument and divide of free speech is contained to Ivy League Schools and their experiences with free speech.
What this article fails to do, is clarify the reader on what free speech is, or was meant to be, and how the student body can react to these instances of harassment and hate speech. Instead, it provides account of many shaken students, some accounts of the civil servants ignorant of the impact of hate-speech, and a couple of moving pictures of Black Lives Matter protestors. The topic of Free vs Hate speech is simple, -well not taking into account the amount …show more content…
‘Anytime someone is punished for pure expression, that is an attack on the principles of free speech,’ Shibley said. ‘It’s not the government’s job to pick what speech is good and what speech is bad. We’ve always said the remedy for bad speech is more speech, ‘ “(Stanley-Becker, Isaac).
In this examination of free-speech Shibley believes that the racist chant of the students was somehow covered under the current policies, and because the fraternity was reprimanded, it was be an “attack on the principles of free speech,” (Stanley-Becker, Isaac). People in charge, such as Shibley, don't truly understand the impact of the video posted, and how the culture of the school, for all its talk on diversity, should be protected. The college was correct in its expulsion of the two students, because of the magnitude the video reached, and the reputation the school was branded with. The fraternity represents a small amount of student body, so somehow their right to free speech is upholded while the target of their chants have to sit idly by, while their humanity is stripped? Shibley is appealing to his gut-reaction to shield the privileged boys for their hateful and immoral actions, and a simple fighting bad speech with more speech doesn't cut it. You can't drown out the chants of your impending assault with more talk. It’s like repeating your ABC’s while a hate group started surrounding you. The solution is more regulation on hate-speech, not half-baked solutions by
What this article fails to do, is clarify the reader on what free speech is, or was meant to be, and how the student body can react to these instances of harassment and hate speech. Instead, it provides account of many shaken students, some accounts of the civil servants ignorant of the impact of hate-speech, and a couple of moving pictures of Black Lives Matter protestors. The topic of Free vs Hate speech is simple, -well not taking into account the amount …show more content…
‘Anytime someone is punished for pure expression, that is an attack on the principles of free speech,’ Shibley said. ‘It’s not the government’s job to pick what speech is good and what speech is bad. We’ve always said the remedy for bad speech is more speech, ‘ “(Stanley-Becker, Isaac).
In this examination of free-speech Shibley believes that the racist chant of the students was somehow covered under the current policies, and because the fraternity was reprimanded, it was be an “attack on the principles of free speech,” (Stanley-Becker, Isaac). People in charge, such as Shibley, don't truly understand the impact of the video posted, and how the culture of the school, for all its talk on diversity, should be protected. The college was correct in its expulsion of the two students, because of the magnitude the video reached, and the reputation the school was branded with. The fraternity represents a small amount of student body, so somehow their right to free speech is upholded while the target of their chants have to sit idly by, while their humanity is stripped? Shibley is appealing to his gut-reaction to shield the privileged boys for their hateful and immoral actions, and a simple fighting bad speech with more speech doesn't cut it. You can't drown out the chants of your impending assault with more talk. It’s like repeating your ABC’s while a hate group started surrounding you. The solution is more regulation on hate-speech, not half-baked solutions by