| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "SPEECH CAMPUS": |
|
|
Hate Speech on Campus, 2004.
A discussion of hate speech on campus and whether it is protected by the Constitution.
1,657 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The first part of this paper examines arguments stating that hate speech deserves Constitutional protection. The next part then examines how hate speech hurts victims and destroys tolerance. In the conclusion, this paper argues that the First Amendment protects even hate speech. Thus, campus speech codes and other restrictions on freedom of expression violate the Constitution.
Contents
Hate speech is free speech
Hate speech should be restricted
Position: Hate Speech must be protected
References
From the Paper
"Throughout the history of this country, groups have fought to restrict unpopular and offensive speech. In the 1920s, for example, Margaret Sanger was jailed on obscenity charges after she distributed pamphlets on birth control. In the 1930s, efforts were made to ban representatives of Jehovah?s Witnesses from excessive proselytizing. More recently, American citizens who questioned the Bush administration?s ?war on terror? campaign have been characterized as traitors."
| |
|
Freedom of Speech on College Campuses, 2006.
An essay looking at how the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York City and the Patriot Act have impacted free speech on college campuses.
1,484 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that the September 11th terrorist attack on New York City and the resulting Patriot Act have resulted in severe limitations on free speech, particularly on college campuses. The paper argues that civil liberties are being ominously curtailed as a result of the Patriot Act and that free speech is in danger of being overrun by fear mongers, both in university administrations and in our federal and state governments.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Thesis
Developing the Thesis
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The pamphlet extolling the college of your choice proudly pro-claims: We want to expand your horizons and let your mind grow. You go to college to learn and study and grow up. You also are supposed to have a chance to speak your mind, without parent or guardian hovering, and without a college guidance counselor making sure everything you say is politically correct. Well, today's college campuses offer little that is truly free- including free speech. Yes, it's guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But, there are now limits, thanks to 9/11 and the Patriot Act."
| |
|
Free Speech on Campus, 2007.
A discussion about free speech on college campuses.
thanks.
1,332 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the issue of free speech, with special emphasis on the American college campus. The writer argues that free speech should never be banned or regulated as it is a protected right under the United States Constitution. The author examines how today's college administrators wrestle with the idea of free speech at their institutions. The author concludes that free speech must exist in order for the Constitution to be protected and so students can continue to grow in their ability to ascertain fact from fiction.
Outline:
Introduction
The Subjectivity of it All
The Ultimate Decision
Conclusion
From the Paper
"As much as most individuals will agree that certain speech is hurtful to others society by and large has the ability to correct itself by ignoring or shunning those who insist on voicing opinions that are unpopular or hateful and college students are capable of the same shunning which in turn brings pressure to the speech giver to cease and desist.
We cannot pick and choose which part of the constitution we are going to protect as the entire document embodies what the founding fathers intended when they put it together."
| |
|
Hate Speech on College Campuses, 2005.
Argues for the need of standards to control hate speech on college campuses in the United States.
1,457 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
As colleges struggle to handle the various differences their students and faculty embody, the problem of "hate speech" has become a focal point of educational erudition and policy-making. The paper shows that in the most deliberate and alarming cases, hate speech is projected to degrade or disgrace those at whom it is directed, usually colored people, gays, lesbians, the physically or mentally challenged and women, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion or ability. This essay discusses the current dominant structure within which the matter of hate speech is being debated. This structure draws heavily on the discussion of the Fourteenth and the First Amendments, which in the author's opinion, are not adequate to cope with the issue of hate speech. There is a pressing need for extra-legal standards for communicative interaction to handle this sensitive issue.
From the Paper
"Those discussing the hate speech on college campuses often support either the Fourteenth or the First Amendments, depending on their political preferences. Fourteenth Amendment advocates the value of "equal protection" while the First Amendment supports "freedom of speech". Due to this general tendency to rely more and more on various laws, it is not unexpected that hate speech should also be conceived legalistically."
| |
|
Free Speech on Campus, 2002.
An argument in favor of the students' right to free speech on university and college campuses.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, £ 18.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will argue for freedom of speech on campus and seek to show how this can be created for a liberal view on the school grounds. By understanding the relationship that the faculty have with the students, free speech should be used to create a better understanding of the role of student and the governing powers of the land to help make our opinions more vocally announced.
| |
|
Would Mill Support Banning Racist Speech on Campus?, 2002.
The writings of John Stuart Mill, a staunch supporter of free speech, are analyzed for his attitudes on freedom on campus.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 0 sources, £ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In "On Liberty," Mill proves to be a staunch supporter of free speech. The writer begins the paper by analyzing his views. Using his own views as a basis, the paper argues that he would support banning racist speech on campus. It points to the restrictions Mill is willing to place on free speech as proof, mainly the harm clause.
From the Paper
"In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that no person or group of people, including the government, is ever justified in silencing someone?s opinion. He begins by arguing that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are inseparable. After all, how meaningful is freedom of thought without freedom of speech? What good does it do us to be allowed freedom of thought while being denied the expression of that thought? Mill points out that by curbing freedom of speech, government would be taking something extremely important away from us. The government would be restricting not only our freedom of speech, but also our right to express our thoughts, and that?s much more drastic."
| |
|
Hate Speeches: The Right to Freedom of Speech, 2001.
A look at freedom of speech with respect to 'hate' speeches' and whether or not these speeches are protected under the First Amendment.
1,168 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 5 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author argues that ?hate speeches?, however abhorrent, should be protected by the U.S. Constitution, that in the interest of free speech, they should be allowed. He suggests that this is synonymous with American freedom and refers to some specific examples in order to assess whether hate speeches should be protected under the First Amendment. The author contends that as long as we are free to judge the importance of what is being said for ourselves, then words should never be banned.
From the paper:
?Words are serious, not because they have any direct effect in their own right, but because words, and the ideas they express, are what we use to weigh up our own decisions, their likely effects, and our responsibilities. Words have consequences only if we choose to give them consequences.?
| |
|
Gay Speech, not Hate Speech, 2008.
A discussion on the use of word forms specifically constructed for recognition by gay and lesbian groups.
1,041 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 25.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper illustrates how language serves a purpose to the gay and lesbian community to assist them in recognizing themselves as a group in a world of opposition and ridicule of their status. The paper quotes several words and descriptively explains how the word is utilized in gay society. The paper then summarizes the situation with examples on how language has been used negatively with the resultant necessity for this group to formulate their own vocabulary.
From the Paper
"This usage appears to have grown out of political activism. The need to combat homophobic oppression - including internalized homophobia - was perceived, and a concrete way of doing this was to hold a public parade in which pride in one's alternative sexual orientation was expressed. Out of this activity, the word "pride" acquired a whole new meaning - a meaning that is useful for this community in overcoming the societal prejudices it has to deal with."
| |
|
Boundaries of Free Speech, 2004.
A look at whether campus speech codes are the right way to address the problem of hate speech, or if such speech codes violate free speech to such a degree that they should not be adopted.
2,510 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 14 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper asserts campus speech codes are the wrong way to address the problem of hate speech, especially because they exist in a academic setting where freedom of speech should be better understood. The paper concludes that curbing the speech of those who would curb our speech is never the answer. The only way to transform minds is to challenge the ideas behind the hate speech directly through dialogue.
From the Paper
"Americans value the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, but they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift over time. One issue of free speech today is described under the title "Political Correctness," or "PC." It is defined as efforts by certain political groups to enforce some form of speech code in order to control speech and ban any term or phrase that might be considered demeaning to any group in society, so-called "hate speech." One of the problems with these efforts is the vagueness of the terms used to define it--what is "demeaning," and how is it to be decided when a given phrase is demeaning or not? In his chapter, "Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the Unspoken," from the anthology Signs of Life, Richard Goldstein writes, The perception of crisis is why hate speech has become a divisive issue among progressives. The distressing force of the current backlash against hard-won minority rights creates a fundamental conflict between our commitment to free expression and our desire to protect and preserve the victims of abuse. The result is an aching uncertainty about where to draw the line. (412) The question, then, is whether campus speech codes are the right way to address the problem of hate speech, or if such speech codes violate free speech to such a degree that they should not be adopted."
| |
|
Freedom of Speech Boundaries, 2001.
Focus on speech codes on college campuses to control speech demeaning to any group. Discusses legal history, pro & con arguments. Concludes codes to control "hate speech" not a good idea.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Americans value the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, but they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift over time. One issue of free speech today is described under the title "Political Correctness," or "PC." It is defined as efforts by certain political groups, primarily those on the left, to enforce some form of speech code in order to control speech to ban any term or phrase that might be considered demeaning to any group in society, so-called "hate speech." One of the problems with these efforts is the vagueness of the terms used to define it--what is "demeaning," and how is it to be decided when a given phrase is demeaning or not? Richard Goldstein writes ..."
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2004.
A look at interpretations of the First Amendment and how they affect the ongoing debate about free speech and hate speech.
3,987 words (approx. 15.9 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the legal debate surrounding the issue of free speech and hate speech and how the First Amendment's implications regarding this topic lack clarity and, therefore, are subject to numerous interpretations. The paper also looks at how college campuses have attempted to handle the problem of hate speech, examines some Supreme Court rulings on hate speech and hate symbols, and includes an overview of arguments for and against the use of hate speech laws and codes.
Constitutionality of Hate-Speech Laws and Legislation
College Campus Hate-Speech Codes
Fighting Words; Hate Symbols
State Interest in Regulating Hate-Speech
Arguments for and Against Such Laws and Codes
First Amendment Protection of Unpopular or Offensive Speech
Sentence Enhancement for Bias Motivated Crimes
Supreme Court Handling of Hate-Speech and Hate Crime Issues
From the Paper
"Interpretations of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. Like many articles in the Constitution, the exact meaning of the first amendment and the implications it had for the founding fathers are unclear. It provides a general orientation for federal action, but just how it is to be made operational is open to discussion. The conclusion reached will depend on the overall interpretive framework one uses. These frameworks, in turn, will merge into one's political and social philosophy. For example, at the time of its adoption, many thoughtful people believed that government should not prohibit the publication of one's views but could and should punish some writers for the harmful effects of such publication. This view, while plausible, is not the dominant interpretation at the present time."
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2002.
This paper discusses the problem of controlling hate speech and yet protecting both free speech and equality.
1,154 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates the clash, between the First Amendment, which protects free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment which protects equality, in relationship to hate speech. This paper refers to hate speech codes which have been developed as a response to hate speech especially on American campuses. The author explains Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire as the benchmark case for "fighting words" and "offensive speech."
Table of Contents
Introduction
Hate Speech Codes
The First Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment
Conclusion
From the Paper
"There seems to be a clash between the First and Fourteenth Amendments; a person has the right to free speech, but a person also has the right to be equal. When free speech becomes hate speech, this can violate the victim?s constitutional rights to be equal. This argument is used to protect hate speech ordinances. Cleary, the idea of ?fighting words? was introduced to address this problem; a person has the freedom to say as they wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others."
| |
|
Freedom of Speech, 2001.
History of First Amendment free speech clause. Free speech prior to 1st Amendment; Bill of Rights; U.S. Supreme Court rulings & interpretaitons of political speech, obscenity. Internet & free speech.
4,050 words (approx. 16.2 pages), 25 sources, £ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." And although the First Amendment specifically mentions only Congress, the provision now applies to protect the free speech rights of each individual from all governmental intrusion, including local, state and federal. In many ways, the evolution of the right to free speech in the United States illustrates the social and political history of the nation. Begun as a contested amendment to the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech has become one of the central tenets of American democracy."
| |
|
Crime on Campus, 1998.
This paper examines the issue of student discipline and the pursuit of justice on college campuses.
13,560 words (approx. 54.2 pages), 38 sources, MLA, £ 172.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although there is a long legacy of criminal incidents and systemic injustices occurring on college campuses;the number of incidences of wild melees, rioting, cheating, hooliganism and serious criminal behavior are increasing greatly on many campuses. The author stresses that, even though more than eight years have passed since Congress first enacted the landmark Campus Security Act of 1990, the scope and magnitude of the problem of crime prevention and justice on campus is still not accurately understood. The paper stresses that, if accountability is to be included in any calculus of guilt or innocence, America's college administrators deserve special mention for their particularly underwhelming record, transforming too often what should resemble an intellectual journey into a life-threatening and too often hair raising tour through Dante's inferno.
Table of Contents
Prologue
Current Trends
Rioting: The New Rage and a Few Familiar Faces
Enforcement Efforts
Is Your School Safe?
Campus Crime: Not Just Numbers
Campus Courts
Campus Police Logs
Definitions Used for Compiling Crime Statistics
Campus Awareness Act of 1990
Background
The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
Campus Crime Statistics
Annual Security Reports
Campus Security Procedures and Programs
On-Campus Occurrences of Crime
Occurrences of Crimes Manifesting Evidence of Prejudice ("Hate Crimes")
Study Indicates Widespread Non-Compliance
From the Paper
"Property crimes (which here include only burglary and motor vehicle theft, since these are the only property crimes the Act requires institutions to report) were reported by about two-fifths of the institutions in each of the 3 years. According to 1994 statistics, 37 percent had experienced burglary on campus, while 23 percent reported at least one motor vehicle theft. The percentage of institutions reporting occurrences of violent and property crimes varied greatly by institutional type, whether the institution had campus housing, and the size of the institution. Public 4-year institutions, those with campus housing, and larger institutions were more likely to report occurrences of both violent and property crimes than were other types of institutions. For example, one or more violent crimes were reported by 78 percent of public 4-year institutions, about half of institutions with campus housing, and 84 percent of institutions with 10,000 or more students, compared with 3 percent of for-profit less-than-2-year institutions, 12 percent of institutions without campus housing, and 7 percent of institutions with less than 200 students."
|
|
|
