The Discomfort of Free Speech
A recent development in the struggle to define and protect free speech has taken place on college campuses across the country as millennials have requested “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” in an effort to excuse themselves from conversations they do not want to have, conversations that encourage them to challenge and support their own views. As political correctness continues to be pushed, this generation of young people becomes increasingly leery of views that oppose political correctness, along with their own views. We will see a society that pushes only one outlook on every topic instead of many views on one topic as millennials become future leaders of this country. Although some believe that students are …show more content…
As put by Lythcott-Haims, students used to be able to “go to college and be challenged by the free exchange of ideas,” which produced adults that were “interested in getting to sound, informed conclusions.” Yet millennials today are all about keeping everyone comfortable. That doesn’t sound like a bad ideal on the surface, but keeping everyone comfortable means that free speech has to be limited, and if it is unlimited, people are free to express views that hurt others. Undoubtedly, many millennials have experienced hurt due to the words of others. Kathleen McCartney, the president of Smith College, suggests that students are “interested in the boundaries of free speech” because of the ability to harass others online behind anonymous screen names, as so many millennials have experienced. Hiding behind the internet’s cloak provides the ability to hurt others without any consequences. If colleges do not teach students that people can and do disagree, then students will not learn how to handle the hurt others cause. Even “controversial and offensive ideas merit discussion,” or else colleges will no longer produce adults that value good decisions (Lythcott-Haims). Rather than valuing a good decision, millennials will value everyone having the same perspective. This value in leadership means that not only will millennials be pushing the same thought, but they will push the …show more content…
One professor of law at the University of California, Eugene Volokh, was quoting Justice Hugo Black when he said that “First Amendment protection ‘must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.’” Nevertheless, the previous statement is true. Millennials should be aware that denying people the right to their own opinions means that their thoughts can be denied as well. If millennials are allowed to limit speech on their campuses and then the speech in the workforce later in life, those whose speech is limited will “demand the same ‘protection’ from speech that offends” them, meaning that those who limit speech may have their own speech confined (Volokh). Even if groups seek to limit free speech because they are “outsiders fighting the powerful,” the government cannot be expected to give “extra censorship powers” without also holding the power to use limits “againsts future ‘progressives’” like those who wanted the limits in the first place (Volokh). If students are allowed to restrict the speech of their peers in class, they will restrict the speech of their workers someday as well. These workers with limits on their speech will see the unwillingness to discuss uncomfortable ideas in their leaders, leading them to either sit in their discomfort or rise up and fight for their leaders’
A recent development in the struggle to define and protect free speech has taken place on college campuses across the country as millennials have requested “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” in an effort to excuse themselves from conversations they do not want to have, conversations that encourage them to challenge and support their own views. As political correctness continues to be pushed, this generation of young people becomes increasingly leery of views that oppose political correctness, along with their own views. We will see a society that pushes only one outlook on every topic instead of many views on one topic as millennials become future leaders of this country. Although some believe that students are …show more content…
As put by Lythcott-Haims, students used to be able to “go to college and be challenged by the free exchange of ideas,” which produced adults that were “interested in getting to sound, informed conclusions.” Yet millennials today are all about keeping everyone comfortable. That doesn’t sound like a bad ideal on the surface, but keeping everyone comfortable means that free speech has to be limited, and if it is unlimited, people are free to express views that hurt others. Undoubtedly, many millennials have experienced hurt due to the words of others. Kathleen McCartney, the president of Smith College, suggests that students are “interested in the boundaries of free speech” because of the ability to harass others online behind anonymous screen names, as so many millennials have experienced. Hiding behind the internet’s cloak provides the ability to hurt others without any consequences. If colleges do not teach students that people can and do disagree, then students will not learn how to handle the hurt others cause. Even “controversial and offensive ideas merit discussion,” or else colleges will no longer produce adults that value good decisions (Lythcott-Haims). Rather than valuing a good decision, millennials will value everyone having the same perspective. This value in leadership means that not only will millennials be pushing the same thought, but they will push the …show more content…
One professor of law at the University of California, Eugene Volokh, was quoting Justice Hugo Black when he said that “First Amendment protection ‘must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.’” Nevertheless, the previous statement is true. Millennials should be aware that denying people the right to their own opinions means that their thoughts can be denied as well. If millennials are allowed to limit speech on their campuses and then the speech in the workforce later in life, those whose speech is limited will “demand the same ‘protection’ from speech that offends” them, meaning that those who limit speech may have their own speech confined (Volokh). Even if groups seek to limit free speech because they are “outsiders fighting the powerful,” the government cannot be expected to give “extra censorship powers” without also holding the power to use limits “againsts future ‘progressives’” like those who wanted the limits in the first place (Volokh). If students are allowed to restrict the speech of their peers in class, they will restrict the speech of their workers someday as well. These workers with limits on their speech will see the unwillingness to discuss uncomfortable ideas in their leaders, leading them to either sit in their discomfort or rise up and fight for their leaders’