The First Amendment provides protection for all kinds of speech. There have been many debates regarding if this is true. How can speech that is utterly abhorred by the majority be protected under the First Amendment? When it comes to college campuses, it is necessary to bring such topics into discussion and educating students in tolerance and history. This is much more effective than imposing strict speech codes. Imposing rules and regulations on racist speech will only deny their existence and bring about ignorance in us all.
In the past there have been two important court cases regarding types of speech that are protected by the First Amendment. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, it was ruled that "fighting words" (words directly aimed at an individual so as to instigate a fight) were not protected under the First Amendment. This meant that criminal charges could be brought against anyone who intentionally offended someone by name. Beauharnais v. Illinois dealt with a similar situation. The court ruled that group libel (damaging a group's reputation e.g. racism) was also not protected by the Constitution. So why are colleges having such difficulty regulating speech? To put it simply, the cases rulings are out of date. Court cases after these two later changed to signify that, in fact, the First Amendment protected all kinds of speech, regardless of its nature. The ACLU is a classic example of protecting speech rights.
It is said "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the people to peaceably assembly- (Bill of Rights, Amendment 1). Nowadays, this is taken very seriously and all attempts by well meaning colleges to .
regulate hostile speech have been struck down by the courts. The very of idea of regulating speech seems Orwellian to many. If speech that instills hostility can be restricted, then why not all forms of speech? This is the major point brought by those who oppose speech regulation.