Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected

To Protect Intellectual Freedom In our society, there are those who support intellectual pluralism and those against it. Today, there are still those who are prejudiced towards minorities (racists, homophobes, sexists, etc.) and their ideas still thrive as they are passed on through generations; it would be impossible to remove these ideas from America. Many claim that microaggressions and severe prejudices are very damaging to the groups who receive such “hate” and “verbal violence,” but they are merely opinions from groups that are free to use their voice however they please. It is unfair to claim that any opinion is false and should be removed from society entirely. Educational and economic freedom are exactly what this country and its people should be striving for. All opinions are biased and everyone has the right to agree or disagree
It is ludicrous for anyone at all to believe that they have the right to regulate any opinion, whether it belongs to one or shared by millions. Just as everyone has the right to protect others with their beliefs, there is also the right to offend. In the article, In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected (May 1995), Jonathan Rauch claims that “An enlightened and efficient intellectual regime lets a million prejudices bloom, including many that you or I may regard as hateful or grotesque. It avoids any attempt to stamp out prejudice, because stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority,” on page 3. If society were to be ideal, no one’s ideas would be looked down upon, regardless of whoever disagrees. For America to grow into a stronger