Should hate speech be regulated on college campuses?

Cortney Nickerson

PHI 393 Ethics

Pro. McFall

2-24-03

Hate Speech

Should hate speech be regulated on college campuses?

Thesis: No, hate speech should not be regulated on college campuses.

Argument:

Words express ideas.
Listeners have the freedom to intellectually assess and evaluate words.
College is a place for young minds to practice the interpretation of ideas.
Everyone is different in turn causing everyone to have different interpretations.
Varying interpretations of words may cause offense to one individual, but not another.
It follows that words, in and of themselves, do not cause harm, actions do.

Therefore, as long as freedom of interpretation by each individual exists, hate speech should not be regulated on college campuses.

In the case of hate speech, it seems that the individual listening to the words being spoken holds the power, rather than the speakers themselves holding the power. The individual who is listening has the ability to intellectually interpret the context by which to understand the words the speaker is speaking. Following this interpretation, the listener can judge for himself or herself how much value and weight they feel the words that were spoken actually have. This is not to say that words are not without consequence and that they are not persuasive in appealing to individual emotions. But it is important to remember that just because an individual does not say what they think, it does not mean that they are not thinking it at all. And it follows that the action that the person chooses to take in accordance to their unspoken opinion is what causes harm. It would be absurd to think that an individual thinking the words of their opinion within their head is causing harm to someone. This would be saying that the concept of words and language is a harmful one by nature. The truth is, although verbalizing one’s opinions may cause offense to some listeners, the idea and opinion itself put into word form does not cause harm. Although clique, it is said that actions speak louder than words. I feel that this statement is true. When it comes to speech, words themselves do not cause harm.

Email

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Objection: Speaking is an action itself. Does it not follow by this that words can be harmful when spoken?

Response: Although speaking is an action, it is the interpretation of the words that are spoken that does or does not cause offense. If one is offended by someone’s opinion it is because they feel that the words being spoken do not agree with their view or interpretation of the situation. But this disagreement among views should not silence the speaker or the listener from defending what they think. Also, being offended does not by definition cause harm. By definition, offend ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Objection: Speaking is an action itself. Does it not follow by this that words can be harmful when spoken?

Response: Although speaking is an action, it is the interpretation of the words that are spoken that does or does not cause offense. If one is offended by someone’s opinion it is because they feel that the words being spoken do not agree with their view or interpretation of the situation. But this disagreement among views should not silence the speaker or the listener from defending what they think. Also, being offended does not by definition cause harm. By definition, offend means “to cause resentment or anger or to be displeasing to.” Being offended by words causes heightened emotions and feelings that must also be interpreted but it does not constitute harm.

There are situations in which people who are speaking do not mean to be offensive but are trying to extend a compliment or constructive criticism that the listener may take offense to. For example, a basketball player has been practicing their jump shot all week in hopes of impressing the coach. The coach does not know that the player has been spending extra time working on their shot. When the coach gets to practice, the player asks the coach to watch their shot and tell them what they think. The player is assuming that because they have been practicing and they think their shot has gotten better that the coach is going to have the same opinion. After watching a few shots the coach tells the player to stop shooting. He continues by saying that the player’s technique has gotten worse since he last saw him shoot and that they are going to have to spend a lot of time correcting what is wrong. The player might take offense at this comment since they have been working on their shot and they thought that they were getting better, while the coach thinks that they are extending constructive criticism and their intentions of helping the player get better are solely good.

I do not believe that people should go around “attacking” individuals with their words to purposely offend others but I do believe that people should be free to voice things that they truly believe in. There will always be people who are offended when opposing opinions are given. But, this does not constitute censorship.

Conclusion: Hate speech should not be regulated on college campuses.