"(McClenaghan 516). Speech codes clearly are a violation of the first amendment because they wish to abridge our rights to free speech. The whole idea around free speech is to have the freedom to say what you think. With implementing codes, those freedoms are sized down to comfort the oversensitive. It's sad to see that our own personal freedoms are being questioned. Some have tried to fight the codes and some have been victorious. However, for the most part, they go unchallenged.
Another problem with speech codes is that they tend to be vague and ambiguous. Many codes ban any form of speech that would contribute to a "demeaning atmosphere"(Garry 29) It all seems well intentioned, but who determines what exactly is a demeaning atmosphere. Anyone can claim to feel uncomfortable in their atmosphere, so what are we supposed to do? Ban all speech to make sure no one is offended or feels uncomfortable. The University of Connecticut went as far to issue a proclamation banning "Inappropriately directed laughter"(Garry 29). Allowing these codes is allowing a slippery slope of diminished rights. The code in Connecticut just goes to show just how far these codes can go. It seems ridiculous that people are so worried about offending others that even laughter is out of the question. Speech can offend others, but trying to prevent that from happening is impossible. No one can say what is going to offend everyone. Trying to conform to one set guideline is just makin!.
g the situation worse.
While some things said in the academic arena of college can be rather offensive, it serves as a tool to help teach. Claire Ebel, an executive director of New Hampshire's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated " The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. It's not censorship." In order to truly flourish in the world, people need to be aware of the ideas around them. Of course, some of those ideas will be rather undesirable, but hearing them and being familiar with them is really the only way to combat them.
