Line of Reasoning - Freedom of Speech

In an article discussing the opposing views of free speech rights, the author states, "Censure is not the same thing as censorship; indeed, it could not be. The right not to be censored by the government extends to the right to censure — that is, morally condemn — the speech acts of other people."

Referring to the 1st Amendment right to free speech, we are informed that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First we have to place the reasoning of this right into a commonplace setting rather than a congressional, law-making setting. The reasoning behind this argument is cogent through inductive reasoning. If one is not to be censored, then one also must recognize the right of others to remain censor-free. This may include offensive, off-color, or racial language. This may even be aggressive or threatening. The free-speech line is legally drawn at words that present "clear and present danger" In Texas v. Johnson, Supreme Court Justice William J Brennan, Jr. wrote, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

This is where a lot of conflict lies. Some students want a "safe space" while they are attending college, while other request uninhibited freedom in expressing themselves.

President Barack Obama agrees. In a commencement address given at Rutgers University, he reminded the audience that 3 years prior former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, rescinded her speaking engagement after some expressed their opposition with Ms. Rice's policies. In his disapproval of such closed-minded actions, he stated, "... the notion that this community or the country would be better served by not hearing from a former Secretary of State, or shutting out what she had to say -- I believe that’s misguided."

So the next time someone opposes another's speech because the receiver finds the message offensive, both parties are exercising their 1st Amendment right.