The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787. Within the constitution lies one of its most famous portions; the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is comprised of the ten most crucial rights guaranteed to United States citizens. Since the Bill of Rights was written 231 years ago, the rules it contains have been interpreted in an unimaginable number of ways. One such highly contested right is known as freedom of speech.
In class on September 11, 2018, Dr. Stephen Dunham, an Adjunct Professor of Law, Vice President and General Counsel at Penn State, spoke to us about the issues facing university admissions. One of the problems discussed was related to the first amendment, otherwise known as freedom of speech. Dr. Dunham gave the example of Richard Spencer, a white nationalist leader, who was asking public universities if he could speak his mind on their campus. Many universities wanted to dismiss Spencer as they felt chaos from supporters and protesters would put the safety of their students at risk. Despite this, Richard Spencer would argue that he had the right to speak on these public campuses because of the first amendment. Public universities cannot deny access to their public facilities, even when the speaker maybe unpopular, however, the university is within its bounds to control the time, place, and manner of the event; as long as it is deemed reasonable. Despite this, there is the “Heckler’s Veto”: “a controversial legal position taken by law enforcement officers based on an alleged right to restrict freedom of speech where such expression may create disorder or provoke violence” (Duhaime). When misconduct or chaos is a potential outcome of an event involving public speaking, this veto is often put into action.
During my first semester at Penn State, I took a philosophy course called Ethics in Media. One of the philosophers studied heavily in this course was John Stuart Mill: a famous British philosopher. In particular, we analyzed his piece On Liberty, which derived Mill’s definition of free speech. In On Liberty, Mill advocates anti-censorship, individual freedom, and that offending a person does not trump a person’s freedom of speech. Above all, however, Mill believed that no information published should do more harm than good. According to Mill’s utilitarian perspective, if the release of some information would be detrimental to an individual’s reputation, the information should only be released if it would greatly serve the common good of society. These pillars of free speech can still be practically applied today when looking into cases such as free speech on college campuses.
I agree with Mill’s ideologies as I feel that all people are entitled to an opinion, however, these opinions should only be voiced if they do not cause detriment to society as a whole.  I for one am an advocate for pineapple on pizza, however, there are many people who would disagree. In this case, although my opinion may be unpopular, I should be allowed to exercise my free speech as my words are not harmful to others or detrimental to society as a whole. On the other hand, having a white nationalist leader speak on a college campus does not bear any real benefit to society, and actually bears emotional harm towards students of color on campus.  Just because someone may have an opinion opposite to your own does not mean they cannot express themselves, however, these opinions should be monitored so that they do not cause more harm than good.

Reference

Duhaime, Lloyd. “Heckler’s Veto Definition:” Duhaime.org – Learn Law, www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HecklersVeto.aspx.