Applying the Freedom of Speech

The Harvard Seminar we watched in class this week showed how difficult it can be to apply the freedom speech and determine its limits. In the fictional case, a college student meets with other students in his dorm room to discuss racist, sexist ideas. Even though these ideas are generally frowned upon, all the panel members at the seminar agreed that this student has a right to declare his opinions. As the case continued, we learned that the student’s group, Aryan Truth, wanted to hold a meeting in the school’s auditorium. At this meeting, students began protesting the club and disrupting the meeting. The panel had to decide how to react to this protest. I thought the administrators should let the protestors express their opinions, but I know I only believe this because I disagree with what the club supports. This is what’s hard about applying the freedom of speech; unpopular opinions can’t be prohibited simply because they’re unpopular, but sometimes it seems like one opinion is flat-out wrong. Today racism and sexism are not as tolerated as they have been in the past, so it’s instinctual for a person to declare these ideas as wrong and intolerable. But racism and sexism are still concepts that people believe in, so theoretically they should have the right to express these beliefs. It’s easy to strike down someone else’s opinion as wrong and say that they should not be able to declare their beliefs, but what happens when you’re the one with the unpopular opinion? I have some beliefs about religion that most people would dislike, but I still retain the right to express my opinions. With this topic, I’m in the same situation as the members of Aryan Truth. I know my beliefs are unpopular and go against what most people are taught and believe in, but I still think I should have the right to express these opinions. It’s natural to judge others’ beliefs and clearly distinguish between right and wrong, so it’s extremely difficult to allow every sort of speech to continue. I think fighting words should be protected by the First Amendment because of this. Fighting words are defined as words that cause distress or incite violence. Causing distress just means that someone is offended by the words, and it’s unreasonable to banish all speech that might bother another person. Words themselves don’t incite violence; it’s the decision of the listener whether or not to react in a physical way. The violent responder should be blamed for the violence, not the words being spoken. Even though I think racism and sexism are wrong, I think hate speech should be legal because again, declaring an unpopular opinion illegal is unconstitutional. Who’s to decide which opinions are correct and which are wrong? In order to protect my own speech and ideas, I know I have to accept that people I disagree with have a right to express their opinions as well.