This house would censor hate speech on campus

Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe.[1]

[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-is-more-important-that-preventing-hate-speech

The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights.[1]

[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-is-more-important-that-preventing-hate-speech

While hate speech is a form of expression, it is not one that encourages dialogue. By promoting hatred based on immutable personal characteristics it is by definition anti-dialogue. Hate speech does not contribute anything; it merely provides a justification for violence and discrimination. Extreme messages, be they in words or through symbols, deter moderates from voicing their opinions, either because they do not want to legitimize the message or out of fear of reprisals. This reduces the net dialogue on university campuses and injures the quality of the dialogue that remains.

Hate speech can encourage dialogue and be positive. Allowing hate speech provides an opportunity to combat and change the views of those who are promoting hatred. In the long term this will lead to a reduction in violence through helping air and then solve the underlying causes.

(See Op Argument 1)

Members of groups that find themselves the targets of hate speech will be less likely to attend universities where they feel targeted. As a result, those campuses will become less diverse which will decrease the most effective deterrent of hateful ideas: understanding through interaction. Less Muslim, gay, Jewish, etc. students on campus is exactly what those promoting hatred are trying to achieve. Less students of the targeted group makes them easier to target because there are less people speaking out against the hate speech. A downward spiral is created that, if not checked, can drastically reduce campus diversity which is a massive harm to social integration and social harmony. Speech codes or other censorship sends a signal to minorities that they are welcome in the university.[1]

[1] Seaman, Julie, ‘Hate Speech and Identity Politics’, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 36:99, http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/361/seaman.pdf p.107

The need for interaction is all the more reason to ensure that all ideas are in the marketplace. This way, the veracity of all ideas are questioned. For example, if someone brings bigoted ideas with them as a freshman, perhaps because these ideas were prevalent in the community they grew up in, if they cannot express these ideas and be challenged they may never attempt to integrate. Instead, they will gravitate to those who share their ideas and remain isolated.

When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it.

There is the potential for massive harm should universities become places where individuals continuously need to contain their thoughts and ideas for fear of sanction. It is far easier to actively promote open dialogue and tolerance as this will lead to more diversity.

Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe.[1]

[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-is-more-important-that-preventing-hate-speech

The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights.[1]

[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-is-more-important-that-preventing-hate-speech

While hate speech is a form of expression, it is not one that encourages dialogue. By promoting hatred based on immutable personal characteristics it is by definition anti-dialogue. Hate speech does not contribute anything; it merely provides a justification for violence and discrimination. Extreme messages, be they in words or through symbols, deter moderates from voicing their opinions, either because they do not want to legitimize the message or out of fear of reprisals. This reduces the net dialogue on university campuses and injures the quality of the dialogue that remains.

Hate speech can encourage dialogue and be positive. Allowing hate speech provides an opportunity to combat and change the views of those who are promoting hatred. In the long term this will lead to a reduction in violence through helping air and then solve the underlying causes.

(See Op Argument 1)

Members of groups that find themselves the targets of hate speech will be less likely to attend universities where they feel targeted. As a result, those campuses will become less diverse which will decrease the most effective deterrent of hateful ideas: understanding through interaction. Less Muslim, gay, Jewish, etc. students on campus is exactly what those promoting hatred are trying to achieve. Less students of the targeted group makes them easier to target because there are less people speaking out against the hate speech. A downward spiral is created that, if not checked, can drastically reduce campus diversity which is a massive harm to social integration and social harmony. Speech codes or other censorship sends a signal to minorities that they are welcome in the university.[1]

[1] Seaman, Julie, ‘Hate Speech and Identity Politics’, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 36:99, http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/361/seaman.pdf p.107

The need for interaction is all the more reason to ensure that all ideas are in the marketplace. This way, the veracity of all ideas are questioned. For example, if someone brings bigoted ideas with them as a freshman, perhaps because these ideas were prevalent in the community they grew up in, if they cannot express these ideas and be challenged they may never attempt to integrate. Instead, they will gravitate to those who share their ideas and remain isolated.

When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it.

There is the potential for massive harm should universities become places where individuals continuously need to contain their thoughts and ideas for fear of sanction. It is far easier to actively promote open dialogue and tolerance as this will lead to more diversity.

The truth can only emerge from competition between various ideas in free, transparent discourse. To silence any idea is to remove ideas from the marketplace thus reducing the individual’s ability to use his/her reason and intellect to arrive at a conclusion.[1] Silencing ideas also creates separate marketplaces thereby reducing the legitimacy of both and making it easier for someone espousing hate speech to use censorship as a justification for not engaging their ideas in open debate. When this happens, it becomes more likely that individuals who feel alienated from main stream society will find meaning in the hateful ideas which have also been excluded from the mainstream. This is very similar to the concept of the free market in economics where the freer the market the better off everyone is.[2]

[1] Wikipedia, “Marketplace of Ideas”,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas Retrieved 2011-08-23.

[2] Lee, Steven P., ‘Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas’, D. Golash (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010, http://www.springer.com/978-90-481-8998-4 p.15

It is wrong that obnoxious and hateful views should be given an airing and individuals left to their own devices to decide if those views are right or wrong. Accepting that these views can be voiced on campus and opponents of these views can make their own case implies that these views have equal standing; which is not the case, while there may be freedom of speech there is not freedom to hurt one and other. It is wrong to suggest that hateful ideas will spread faster if banned as if they are not banned those who are preaching such ideas have greater access to others so have more opportunity to persuade

Historically, universities have been centres of free speech and expression. The idea of tenure for professors was developed to ensure academic freedom both for teachers and students.[1] Censorship of any type of expression is a direct assault on the principles of a university. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." Free speech on campus is responsible for producing, or at least fostering many of the progressive ideas of the 20^th century even though these ideas were threatening and caused emotion distress to many people.

[1] American Association of University Professors (AAUP), ‘1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, 1940, http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

Whatever value the expression of hate speech has can be discussed in classrooms where the ideas can be discussed in their social context rather than promulgated from a platform. Banning hate speech will not transform universities into factories of rote learning or crush a progressive atmosphere. Hate speech isn’t about affirming rights, it is about limiting rights. There is no analogy here to the feminist or gay rights movements.

Students need to be able to take chances and express unpopular ideas in order to maximize their personal growth and development. Speech codes, even ones designed to only censor hate speech, have a chilling effect on all speech as students become afraid to say anything that is not politically correct. For example a student at California Polytechnic State University underwent a day long disciplinary hearing for posting a flyer publicising a talk “It’s O.K. to Leave the Plantation”.[1] It would not be surprising if students are less willing to organise such events after such a dressing down. Students also need to learn to respond to ideas they don’t like because even if censorship of hate speech is effectively controlled on campus, it still exists in the outside world. Students will only be able to maximize their ability to ask questions, state opinions, and respond to ideas on a free campus.

[1] Berger, Joseph, “Film Portrays Stifling of Speech, but One College’s Struggle Reflects a Nuanced Reality” New York Times, June 27, 2007. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/education/27education.html

As stated, hate speech can have significant harm on certain individuals’ abilities to attend university and engage in campus life. Their rights to education must balanced against any potential harms that may befall someone who has to think twice before saying something hateful about a member of their university community.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all WLDs because it is a necessary political check on the government. For example article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights[1] and The First Amendment in the United States.[2] The protection of this right is most severely tested when the ideas are abhorrent to our morality but when one person is denied their freedom, it is a harm to everyone’s freedom.

[1] ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, June 2010, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf

[2] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

All rights have to be balanced. Universities have a duty to ensure that everyone is protected and if one person’s right to free speech is infringing on another person’s right to safe access to education in a non-hostile environment then it is just to slightly infringe the first party’s right rather than entirely eliminate the second party’s right.