Limits to Freedom
... of a few? The answer Page 2 is no, even though the beliefs of some may be offensive to others they are also entitled to their opinions. Charles R. Lawrence III, author of “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus,” exclaims “ Racial insults are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue but to injure the victim”(Lawrence 350). Here Charles Lawrence argues that ignorant comments, such as racial insults, are not deserving of first amendment protection because they are not simply spoken words, but they are words that are whose intention is to harm whom ever they are directed to. Lawrence brings up a good point but the perpetrator has not caused any real harm, such as physical harm, he/she has just uttered a few words, and under the American Constitution that person has every right to say anything he/she pleases. If hurting words were liable for prosecution then the young lady that rejected me the other night should have been fined, or cited. Lawrence also contradicts himself by saying, “Such protection of this speech reinforces our society’s commitment to tolerance as a value”(Lawrence 349). In other words, he is saying that those on the receiving end of the offensive language should tolerate the ignorance and simply turn the other cheek. The tolerance of these insults protects our first amendment rights because it is no longer being challenged. But is tolerance the best answer for the resolution of this on going debate? Gary Wills, author of “In Praise of Censure” argues that censure is the most logical answer to this social dilemma, “ The open expression of moral disapproval- or censure- can be a powerful response to the objectionable. Censure Page 3 does not repress ideas but holds them up for public scrutiny and examination”(Wills 360). He is saying that we should publicly debate what is “offensive” and resolve this problem as a community. This solution is ridiculous. It will not solve anything it would only further complicate the problem by dividing the community into two groups, those that agree and those that disagree on whatever is presented to them. The censorship of speech on campus would hinder the freedom we, Americans, have to speech and to an education. Alan C. Kors, author of “The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses” asserts, “Those things that threaten free and open debate and those things that threaten academic freedom are the direct enemy of liberty” (Kors 353). In other words, The challenging and censorship of s...