Hate speech, I have to say is one of the most controversial arguments when considering the fine line that we have to draw when people claim that it is their constitutional right to oppress others with their words based on their religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, or skin tone. Since 1942, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Hampshire in the Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, fighting words were considered to be outside our first amendment rights, but this was overturned in the 19992 case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, where a teenager burned a cross in the yard of a black family, and since then hate speech, categorized as fighting words, has become a constitutional right
I personally think that hate speech is one of the things that we are going to have to accept, because it is entwined to other forms of derogatory statements that keep America in balance. Political satire for example, hardly ever true and often misleading, holds Americans to a shred of the fundamental political world that most would forsake altogether. Americans tend to turn a cold shoulder towards politics today due to its reputation for deceit and lies. Political satire keeps politicians on their toes, showing that they are not above the law and keeping them wary not to step out of line, because they are being watched. For these reasons political satire in my mind is fundamental in the world.
Tying political satire to hate speech, we must all recognize that the American government cannot go on a crusade to stamp out everything it considers calumnious. When it does, legislation generalizes, and hate speechs fighting words are applied in broader terms.
Heres an example to support my statement. Fighting words arent limited to hate speech, there are other areas where people have felt offended and legislation has been applied, such as the political scene. John McCains vendetta for campaign finance reform is a great example of the governments legislation decisions on fighting words. Campaign finance reform has gone so far to limit fighting words that opposing parties cannot fund ads publishing an incumbents voting record. THEIR VOTING RECORD! I highly criticize government legislation on hate speech and fighting words because it has been abused in these other situations.
What is that old proverb? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me? So whats a university to do when someone wishes to express a recusant view that might disparage a certain group unfairly? Print it, assuming of course it is professional, worded and organized educationally to the standards of all other articles. But if the school believes the information to be misleading and incorrect, or contrary to the beliefs of the majority, seek someone to write a contrasting article beside it, making the proper counter-points and providing another perspective for the students to choose from, deciding on their own what they think is the most logical conclusion. This is the way the mass media works in America today, providing different perspectives on news. If you dont like listening to them, obtain your news elsewhere. If you want to here a liberal spin, tune in to MSNBC, ABC, or CBS. If you want fair balanced news, tune in to FOX. Its your decision, and similarly it can be a students decision to provide two contrasting opinions when releasing controversial information.
