Free Speech Policy Analysis

In the reading, Free Speech policy has been brought back to the attention as the UC regents would like to prevent the students from prejudice. The new policy proposed was reprimanded by some regents and Jewish group as it seems too weak and the issue has gone way too far. It brings national attention to UC on how to make the universities’ environment more welcoming for multicultural students. Also with the emergence of social media, it is easy for students to broadcast their racist views. Universities have to measure not to regulate too much on an expression of the idea to enrich the opinion but also have to concern on the impact to an individual. Sanctions and punishment are not the possible solutions. An eight-person committee was created
Start by thinking about the situation in the listening material, its situation happened a long time ago, it can be compared with a flower that starting to bloom. The intention of the protest was very pure because it came from the students who did not have any beneficial reason behind. They requested for the right that is in the constitution and did not intent to intrude others’ right. Thus, what happened in the listening did not violate the freedom of speech.
The objective of the movement in the reading is to regulate Freedom of Speech, which differs from the listening as they want it to be free from restriction due to the fact that the situation is different. Nowadays, many things have changed, for instance, the improvement of transportation and the emergence of social media, which lead to multicultural society and variety of expression. The society is more complicated and people are getting used to Freedom of Speech. Hence, the expressions come in many different ways and intentions. It has gone too far from being able to share own opinions and ideas to offend other people, thus, limitation should be required. In my opinion, I believe that the situation in reading material did not violate the freedom of speech as well because the constitution is written to be a protection of people and the objective of the regulation is created to protect
However, BU has committed itself to support the expressive rights of student and faculty. Surprisingly, BU’s policy on Tolerance and Religion has set some regulation in expression by prohibit displaying or distributing expression of opinion that may show disrespect to others’ feelings. This code is directly affected freedom of expression because students cannot criticize in political or social issues, due to the fact that it is really hard not to use some of harsh words for criticizing in controversial topic. This policy is depending on whether or not the expression creates a captive audience. Fortunately, Supreme Court interpret the “captive audience” doctrine in a narrow way. If the audience can simply avoid the expression by looking away, they will not be a captive audience. Thus, BU cannot reasonably claims that BU’ students are captive audiences because they may see a sign or be handed a pamphlet that they can choose not to see