Freedom of Speech Has to Be Absolutely Protected

We often argue the first amendment of American Constitution that “freedom of Speech” as a symbol of freedom in the U.S. I strongly agree with such statement. I believe having right to have speech is one of the most basic rights to maintain equality and democracy. However, many colleges today start restricting this freedom of speech by speech conduct, in order to build more avoid uncomfortable ambient created by offensive words. What would I do, if condition of acceptance to my school was signing an agreement that I would refrain from using racist, sexist, or otherwise abusive language on campus? I would not sign such agreement even though there is benefit from restricting abusive language.

First, what would be benefit of having a speech code to restrict abusive language? I believe restricting such language allow more comfortable environment for people who are targeted by abusive language. The code may encourage all people in school to behave more morally through practicing punishment. The benefit seems to improve whole society’s verbal expression to be highly ethical.

However, we should examine down side of the restriction of abusive language restriction, in order to analyze if such agreement is worth signing. The fact is that the one’s real opinion can be distorted through the speech code since his/her real degree of thought cannot be expressed by restriction of abusive language; opposing with mild and polite words is not same as using cursing words. Even though, use of abusive words can offend others, it can be viewed as sincere language since it reflects strong anger of strong opposing idea. We should consider the fact that restricted use of abusive words in the school does not restrict such use of words out side of the school; we cannot control such words unless we apply the speech code outside the campus as well; thus, the speech code does not serve to completely change abusive expression from the root. Another reason is that it is very hard to define the term abusive words; someone thinks the term is abusive, while other thinks it is not abusive at all; depending on the situation, the word can be offensive or affectionate. Thus code can be used to take advantage of restricting one’s positive expression; on the other hand, favoring other’s negative expression all depending on interpretation. Thus, speech code can create unequal treatment within the campus. It seems like usually people who are not in power have more chance to be abused or mistreated by the majority, since they cannot exceed in numbers; thus they can be treated unfairly by distorted interpretation of speech code if moral standard of people who control the code is not high. Therefore, speech code seems to protect people from abusive words, but actually it may promote inequality or aggressive verbal expression against people.

The biggest reason why I do not sign to agreement of speech code is that restricting abusive word conflicts with the concept of freedom of speech. Having freedom of speech is very important to maintain our basic rights, because speech is the media which can be used to express thought without interaction of physical expression, and powerful enough to change the society. If people are restricted to express whatever they want to say, they lose one of non-violent media to express issue, rather than practicing actual physical resistance. Civil rights movement would not happened without freedom of speech, because if Black people did not have such powerful and non-violent expression, their alternative is protesting or resisting physically, this would have produced more blood and lives lost, and may have been ended without any social change by just suppressing “violent minority group” by force. Many countries where freedom of speech is not allowed, suppression from the ruling group dominates by not giving the suppressed people the opportunity to express themselves; their considerable alternative to resist the ruling group is could be having coup de tat, or something violent. I believe limiting speech causes increase in physically violent actions.

Actually, there is a solution to decrease abusive words toward others. Ethical people do not use abusive words often, because they know that those words offend others and do not make others feel good; thus they tend to restrict themselves to use such words; such use of words are controlled internally rather than externally. Thus such internal control does not conflict with freedom of speech. Therefore nurturing ethnical people would eliminate problem offending others by abusive words. I believe encouraging moral thinking in the speech rather than punishing the speech is the solution to solver the problem.

So, if we analyze both pros and cons of speech conduct on campus, having the code creates unfair judgment toward some speech and which may lead to worth consequence than banning abusive words trough abusing interpretation of the words. Therefore I would not sign the agreement to restrict abusive words in the campus. I strongly believe that freedom of speech is absolutely protected both within and outside of the campus. We will maintain our democracy and liberty by having freedom of speech.