Censorship Violates Our First Amendment Right

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

In the article “Universities are Right to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior,” Eric Posner uses science, logic, reason, and morality to challenge the idea that college students are mature young adults who deserve the right to control their own behavior and to exercise unfettered free speech on campus. Furthermore, Posner contends that speech and sex codes have not always been lax but they changed drastically in the 1960s in response to the circumstances of the era. Consequently, the changes have brought about unwelcome freedoms that students themselves are currently rejecting. According to Posner, both parents and students agree that it’s time to for college administrators to resume a more conventional role in managing the speech and behavior

Trigger statements are becoming more and more popular in syllabi, especially on college campuses. These provide students, especially those with post-traumatic stress disorder, with a warning about possibly uncomfortable content that could cause a flashback or panic attack. There are several different opinions about trigger warnings. Jenny Jarvie, the author of the article “Trigger Happy,” believes that they have gone too far and are a detriment to society (Jarvie 6). To enhance Jarvie’s point further, in their article “The Coddling of the American Mind” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explain how trigger warnings cause metal illness on campuses across the country. The opposing view is that they are necessary to have a fulfilling learning

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

Censorship violates the First Amendment. Therefore, to censor, the Internet would take away from one's freedom of expression and in the United States, I have the freedom to say what I want to say without the government interfering. When it comes to protecting children from inappropriate sites then censorship should be applied. No, it's not ethical because again I have the right to search and accessed any site I want in my free time, but at work then I will follow guidelines.

Sally attended Joliet Junior College and took a general psychology class. One day when she attended her psychology class, her professor warned students of a topic that there were going to talk about in class which was how abuse can damage an individual’s mental state. Sally has been through abuse in her past and is uncomfortable with that certain topic, so she left class because she was alerted to the topic. Ultimately, she didn’t want to revisit her past of abuse. This is considered a trigger warning, in which professors give a warning about topics that they will discuss that can lead to some sort of discomfort for students. Trigger warnings are used on campuses that are considered a safe space. The term safe space is defined as an environment where students can feel like themselves and are not exposed to any harm physically or mentally (Google). Various of colleges/universities have safe spaces so that their students don’t have to go through discrimination of sorts or any harm. Safe spaces are good for students, but there are negative outcomes from it, such as it doesn’t let individuals who suffer and have trauma cope with what happened to them. Even though are negative outcomes from safe spaces, there are positive results that impact Millennials such as a decrease in anxiety and prevention of hate speech.

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

The United States, the land of the free, prides itself in the rights given to its people. Despite the acclaimed freedom of America, Americans, especially college students, are not as free as the founding fathers would have hoped. When the First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, Americans were given the Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, Assembly, and Petition. While the Constitution clearly grants these rights to all U.S. citizens, individuals still fight for these freedoms. Specifically, the Freedom of Speech is an ongoing issue which people continue to pursue. This freedom is essential to student growth in higher education, yet college students are often limited by what they can say while on campus. The censorship of individual and group speech threatens the purpose of a liberal education. It also limits the freedoms of a free society.

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

I do believe that censorship violates our freedom of speech. Books are thought provoking and expressive text that we value. An author has the ability to create a story, of his or her own imagination, or based off on historical content, or etc. Their intent is to prove a point, tell a story, or deliver a message. We, as citizens of the United States, have the right to hear what others want to say. Writing is a form of expression that anyone can have. Censorship puts a brake on the messages that need to be delivered. Censorship, in books, are just erasing or crossing out words. It takes away meaning from the text that was purposely written there. It limits our freedom of speech to voice our opinions and say what we believe in. In addition, though

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

Censorship has been used since the beginning of man’s history and is still prevalent in today’s modern world. First it is important to have an agreed upon definition of what censorship is. To give a basic definition of what censorship is: the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. Many believe and argue that censorship is a violation of human rights which include freedom of express and speech. Those that argue this viewpoint also believe it is a government’s job to ensure the safety of their citizens the best way possible, which really contradicts with the concept and purpose of censorship. The best way to handle the situation of censorship during a time of war, in the United States, is to have the government release an outline to what is considered appropriate to be published to the public. Also have a committee overview the work of journalist reviewed before it is released and have the journalist sign an agreement to not break the code they must use to decide what information they can publish. The best way to handle the situation of internet censorship, in the United States, is to take a hands off approach and allow the internet to be freely accessed with no restraints by all those who choose to use it at their own risk.

Reality is a hard trail that everyone in the world has to face. Reality comes with many aspects that are constantly changing and that can be confusing or scary to many people. Coming to terms with reality is difficult sometimes but, no one must shy from aspects of reality for that reason. If they were to shy away and hide themselves from knowledge or experience then they will never be able to overcome their conflictions with the issue. In order to grow, people have to properly come to understand and face harsh realities. There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings in most places of the world. That’s the lesson that the incoming students of University of Chicago, whom may expect the inclusion of ‘trigger warning’ and ‘safe spaces’ into the education system, need to understand. A safe space is an area located anywhere, where anyone can escape from things they find harmful, such as controversial topics or different ideals. They are also able to fully express themselves, without having to worry about being uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe. A trigger warning is an essentially a warning that the presented content through verbal or visual means, may be considered disturbing or upsetting to many. Some students of Chicago University may think that their school is in need of these concepts in order to protect themselves however the University has rejected the idea in a letter they sent, on the basis that it could prove harmful to their academic freedom.