Media critics, fueled by Trump or otherwise, would like to dislodge societal norms that the traditional news media strives to be fair and objective. ![]() A steady barrage of tweets by President Donald Trump about “fake news” and the “fake news media” has put the role and credibility of the media front and center in the public eye. Whether they feel that the closed settings of college campuses require special handling, or whether they believe more broadly that hateful speech has no place in society, remains a question for future consideration.įew controversies are louder or more visible today than attention to the role and credibility of the news media. This segment of the student population does not buy into the open dialogue paradigm for free speech when the speakers are targeting minority groups. Some part of the current generation of students, population size unknown, believes that they should not have to listen to offensive speech that targets oppressed elements of society for scorn and derision. Whether they are a new phenomenon or more numerous than in the past may be beside the point. The campus controversies may be an example of freedom of speech in flux. But those controversies have garnered prominent national attention, and some examples are reflected in this issue of Human Rights. On balance, there is certainly vastly more free exchange of ideas that takes place on campuses today than the relatively small number of controversies or speakers who were banned or shut down by protests. The dichotomy-society generally favoring free speech, but individuals objecting to the protection of particular messages-and the debate over it seem likely to continue unabated.Ī related contemporary free speech issue is raised in debates on college campuses about whether schools should prohibit speeches by speakers whose messages are offensive to student groups on similar grounds of race and gender hostility. Offensive speech that creates a hostile work environment or that disrupts school classrooms may be prohibited.īut apart from those exceptions, the Supreme Court has held strongly to the view that our nation believes in the public exchange of ideas and open debate, that the response to offensive speech is to speak in response. Hateful speech that threatens or incites lawlessness or that contributes to motive for a criminal act may, in some instances, be punished as part of a hate crime, but not simply as offensive speech. With the raised awareness come increased calls for laws punishing speech that is racially harmful or that is offensive based on gender or gender identity.Īt present, contrary to widely held misimpressions, there is not a category of speech known as “hate speech” that may uniformly be prohibited or punished. These movements have raised consciousness and promoted national dialogue about racism, sexual harassment, and more. The controversy over what many call “hate speech” is not new, but it is renewed as our nation experiences the Black Lives Matter movement and the Me Too movement. Surveys traditionally show that the American people have strong support for free speech in general, but that number decreases when the poll focuses on particular forms of controversial speech. As longtime law professor, free speech advocate, author, and former American Civil Liberties Union national president Nadine Strossen notes in her article, there has long been a dichotomy in public opinion about free speech. One point of regular debate is whether there is a free speech breaking point, a line at which the hateful or harmful or controversial nature of speech should cause it to lose constitutional protection under the First Amendment. This is not meant to be a comprehensive survey of First Amendment developments, but rather a smorgasbord of interesting issues. This issue of Human Rights explores contemporary issues, controversies, and court rulings about freedom of speech and press. ![]() Constitution were ratified in 1791 as the Bill of Rights, debate continues about the meaning of freedom of speech and its First Amendment companion, freedom of the press. ![]() ![]() Yet 227 years after the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Freedom of speech, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo declared more than 80 years ago, “is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Countless other justices, commentators, philosophers, and more have waxed eloquent for decades over the critically important role that freedom of speech plays in promoting and maintaining democracy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |