Does Free Speech Matter

Words: 994
Pages: 4

Across the United States, primarily in Politics and College Campuses where ideas are set to be challenged, the debate rages over the limits of free speech. Should we draw the line somewhere? Where should it be? What is okay to express and what isn’t? Who gets to decide this and what gives them the authority to do so? What do we gain and what do we lose? With all of these questions looming over the minds of Americans, many miss the most important question. Why does Free Speech matter? Why is it so important that is the first guaranteed right to us under our constitution? Why do men and women sacrifice their lives to protect it? To put simply, the value of free speech is being able to challenge any and all ideas and find what is the best course …show more content…
In L’Pree’s article “My classroom is a safe space and what that means”, she references how discussions are held within her class (though note that this specific guide is not representative of all). She emphasizes that everyone must be thoroughly informed and ready to argue their ideas (which is important because those who do not understand the information they are debating cannot offer any new insight to the discussion), all members of the class, regardless of what their ideas may be, will have the opportunity to present their points and respond to others (which is just as important as the more people who can offer ideas, the more people available to filter out things that are incorrect and can further the discussion), and most importantly, that everyone is accountable for the ideas they present to the discussion. This last condition is what makes true free speech possible. L’Pree herself even states in her article that “This is the most important and essential part of a safe space, that words and ideas do not go unquestioned or unchallenged. This is the cornerstone of critical thinking.” And here she and I are in agreement, though I would say that this needs to go beyond her classroom and to discourse in general because just presenting ideas in not enough. We also must challenge those ideas. There is a point however where we diverge and that is she believes that hateful rhetoric should not …show more content…
The ideas that we express can be found offensive by the people around us. And yes, sometimes people use their words as weapons to hurt those around them. But like anything in life, we need to weigh the benefits against the costs. One of the most popular phrases amongst those who support limitations of free speech are identifying someone as racist for their ideas. And maybe the idea they present is racist and maybe it isn’t (that depends on the persons intent and the actual meaning of the idea, not someone else’s first evaluation of the idea without further exploration of what it means). The general costs associated with unbridled free speech (except for the call to action clause preventing someone from stirring others to action that would result in the physical and psychological harm of another person [note the premise of actually having to call others to actually take action] knowingly and even unknowingly depending on the situation) is that it has and can cause psychological harm. We’ve had religious persecutions, egregious acts committed against others based on the color of their skin, and to this day men and women still face issues that correspond to their gender. People are demonized for their political beliefs, for the generation they were born in, and for actions they committed decades ago, regardless of the person they may have become. All of these