Freedom of speech should not be restricted at higher learning institutions. A populations concentrated knowledge and understanding is located at these institutions. Placing limitations on speech that might offend an individual or a group at a university just avoids the issue that is present. When regulations are added to stop such speech, it can become problematic with setting a precedent. Limitations would discourage students from exploring other ideologies for simply not being a popular opinion.
The American author Brad Thor once stated “freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people”. This quote explains the broad implications of having the ability to speak freely. Offensive statements can cause disputes amongst the people. But at the same time it will push people to a unified conclusion, and conclusions come with ways to help people look forward. If the university stopped offensive speech, we would not be able to create something that we can learn from and grow. This teaches us not to avoid the problem, but rather face them and find a solution. The idea of limiting free speech is to make it fair for the people who feel offense to some statements. The concept of fairness is not the same as justice (Stefan, 2013,11). John Rawl mentioned that the principle of justice stems from fair agreements or bargains (Stefan, 2013,11). Keeping this in mind, an agreement is an arrangement that is accepted by all participants in the situation. The constraints should be reasonable and widely accepted by all parties for the principle to exist (Stefan, 2013,12). When one participant is favoured over another, it becomes an aggressive override of one's freedoms. Professor Gunther Indicated that universities should demonstrate greater amounts, and not lesser than society when it comes to freedom of speech (Stefan, 2013,69). If academia adopts limits on expression, it will send the wrong message society (Stefan, 2013,69). As the leader to societies’...