Richard Spencer Speech Analysis

Improved Essays
If Richard Spencer were to request to give a speech on SVSU’s campus, then the school should decline his request. This is because Richard Spencer’s speech is, or at the very least, very very close to hate speech. Further, allowing Richard Spencer’s speech does not necessarily align with John Stuart Mills opinion on the “evils of silencing speech”. Lastly, allowing Richard Spencer to speech on his white supremacist movement would result in a slippery slope. The speeches that Richard Spencer gives are filled with derogatory comments and verbiage that put those who are not classified in his race in harms way, however, it also puts the majority of the white population at much discomfort. John Stuart Mill would therefore argue that SVSU should …show more content…
Therefore, it dos not “deprive the opportunity of exchanging error for truth nor for the strengthening and clarifying of perception” (Mill, 17). Mill states that those two thing are the reason that silencing opinions are a peculiar evil. Denying the use of SVSU does not mean that Spencer cannot talk to students nor present in Saginaw. It is the schools way of picking and choosing who they want to speak on campus, which they most certainly already do. Although Mill rejects paternalism, he does say that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm [or a definite risk of harm] to others” whether it be physical violence or mental (Mill, p. 10). Therefore, a school such as SVSU with a enhanced focus and outreach towards diversity as well as students of numerous races on campus, must deny Spencer’s speech in order to prevent harm. Especially, when Spencer’s speeches come with a “definite risk of harm” as seen in multiple occasions. Mill himself believes that the only time to allow such paternalism would be to prevent harm and Spencer’s movement has already proven harmful to different racial …show more content…
If we allow him to speak on campus than we tolerate the violence that often shows up at his speeches. However, even further is the problem that allowing Richard Spencer to speak leads to a slippery slope. If we allow him to come talk about ethnic cleansing, white supremacy movements, and allow violence to take place because of his words then we will have to allow all white supremacy groups until eventually the Ku Klux Klan will be wanting to speak at SVSU. Such a slippery slope would be very dangerous and would be neglecting our duty to prevent harm. This is because we would not have prevented the “definite damage, or the definite risk of damage to individuals and the public” which Mill believed was the only reason to limit ones liberties (Mill, p. 87). We already know from Spencer’s other speeches that he comes with a definite risk of damage and therefore he should be denied the ability to speech at SVSU if he requests to do

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Every person has a moral obligation between separating what the state says and what they believe. The battle between the state and the individual can cause some controversy such as the topic of censorship. Some wonder if it is right that the government or a big company can obstruct books, news, movies,etc. An abundance of power should not be given to one person, but instead to the people with a voice. The opinions and beliefs of an individual should not be obstructed or it can be detrimental to the society.…

    • 1176 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mills argues, “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” His justification of this is the belief that the loss of diversity in thought amongst society would deprive them of enrichment in knowledge. Mill believes freedom of speech should only be limited when harming others. In his famous corn dealer example (2002, pp. 46-47) he explains that individuals should be permitted to say as they wish without any restrictions as long as they do not harm others however, taking offence is understandable. Mill makes several assumptions regarding the ability of society to rationally understand the difference of harmful and offensive.…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the article titled, “Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought,” Jonathan Rauch concludes that hate speech should not be censored on campus. Rauch believes that students have a right to academic freedom. He believes that students will not feel free to explore or question topics that may be taboo, if they are fearful of reprimand, limiting their ability to learn about the world during a crucial time in their education. First Rauch argues that gaining knowledge is painful and Knowledge cannot be separated from pain, even the most “scientific” criticism can be painful. For example, Physicist Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide following criticism of his ideas.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Still, Lee would point out that abridging means the exercise of prior restraint. The government can’t stop someone from publishing a malicious article, but the person can be punished after. However, to combat Lee’s argument Madison states that certain powers -enumerated powers- are given to the government, which is what they have total control over. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to claim that they can control the press, therefore they shouldn’t be able to punish people even if it is after the article had already been published. In fact, the First Amendment added an express denial of any such power.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We could not say that Martin Luther King, Jr. changed society for the better as that would be judging the social standards of another time. What happens then to someone who wishes to challenge their society’s moral codes? Their argument is immediately shut down by cultural relativism. “There are some moral rules that all societies must have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist” (Rachels 36). Not every moral code is different in different societies and cultures, Murder, for example, must be prohibited in order to have a complex society, and so there has to be some moral standard, meaning that the theory of cultural relativism falls…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Gerald Uelmen, who wrote on the Santa Clara University site about speech codes, “the most fundamental argument against hate speech codes rests on the idea that they violate a fundamental human right, freedom of speech. Such a fundamental right, it is argued, should not be limited except to prevent serious harm to others.” Libel can be described as a cause of serious harm and therefore is banned. However, campuses restrict opinion that is often offensive, but does not cause serious harm to others, in order to prevent hate speech. Additionally, students who have reasonable yet independent views will be frightened to speak in their classes because of the consequences they will receive from disobeying the speech codes in their university (Uelmen). Therefore, a university should listen to all opinions to maximize their diversity of…

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I think the case is completely out of place because these going to an institution where they teach the value of the expression and your right to ejércela written in the Constitution of the United States of America, but while this institution is removing this right . I understand that as an educational institution authorities should prevent any conflict and supporting student welfare and really approve, but I do not agree to the suspension of a minority of five students to lack of evidence and taken over by assumptions never tested of student authorities. Practically this suspension are telling you that you can not express your beliefs because they can be a risk to the student community, but the cast with which I feel more unhappy about all this is that allowed other students to express political way of bringing the famous pins given away in these campaigns or even recognized as supporting the metal crosses causing many deaths and the First World War Adolf Hitler. I totally agree that there is a story behind this bracelet but were not respecting the cast that they were simply expressing their opinions which is a right written in the constitution about the United States of America participating in the war with Vietnam and student authorities did not know the reasons and do not see why they should have known why these children wore the bracelet, clearly we realize that all five children were part of the same family, then to take the decision to suspend not only were suspending were taking away their right to freedom of expression to a family, because clearly if each of the children had was because there was a belief that came from the house and as I said were not only suspending they were violating the right to freedom of expression to a family .…

    • 389 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is a huge debate as to the use of political correctness within universities. Political correctness is said to be correct language used so it does not cause offence or hurt anyone. While people should not be able to do what they want anywhere they want and anytime they want to universities stop any discussion of racism from occurring therefore ignoring the situation when it clearly exists (Berman, 2011). Political correctness can be compared to and understood as a jigsaw where all things occur just lacking a solution (Anderson, 1992). “The selective censorship of speech on campus impairs this goal” (Anderson, 1992 pg.…

    • 1068 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Definition Of Diversity

    • 1165 Words
    • 5 Pages

    If a student does want to express an idea or talk about a subject, it must be completely disassociated from all emotional offense toward other students. Many universities are striving towards making there, “campuses into “safe spaces,” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. This movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally” (Lukianoff). The goal of a natural diversity within opinions or ideas is being taken away and is seen as an offense towards those distressed by a certain subject. Due to this, diversity loses its sense of value by not being accepted in such an educational setting.…

    • 1165 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    limiting what and where certain topics can be spoken is very unconstitutional. We need to come together as a country so we never have to deal with that problem; because, if we don’t we could see the end of the first amendment and may end up giving away the rest of our rights. “Students who won’t hear other perspectives are essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the issue is not open to discussion.” A very true statement spoken by Julie Lythcott-Haims in her article, gives a good insight on what people who can’t handle the truth do. Ignoring an issue doesn’t make it easier or make it go away, it just makes the listener worse off for it. A college kid that doesn’t want to hear the fact he received a bad grade, will turn into an adult that won’t want to learn he is late on his bills.…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays