Speech always free
By Amanda Bittle, Staff Writer
English, a complex and beautiful language, has the capacity to cause pain as well as pleasure.
In the March 12 issue of the Pioneer, student David de la Rosa reported hearing students use the word “gay” to describe something negative and one student refer to a “queer-ass kid” who annoyed him in class.
De la Rosa expressed concern that, though OCCC employees were within earshot of these comments, none of them reprimanded the students.
Learning Support Specialist Mary Turner addressed de la Rosa’s concerns in the next Pioneer.
Students who use the word “gay,” Turner wrote, might not associate the word with sexual orientation at all. She pointed out that language and its meaning are fluid and that communication is a two-way responsibility.
While it may be argued that “gay” has no connection to sexual orientation, “queer-ass kid” is more difficult to explain as simple miscommunication.
If “gay” does mean something negative, does there develop a subconscious connection between homosexuality and unworthiness? Or can the various meanings of the word exist independently of each other?
If words are demeaning, should laws and school rules dictate what people can and cannot express?
No.
Limiting speech is not the most effective to way to combat bigotry. Rather than suppressing others’ opinions, people should contribute their own dialogue to the “free marketplace of ideas.”
There are no logical arguments in favor of prejudice. Free expression allows others to shed light on the ignorant contentions of bigots.
Except in certain cases, such as when language creates a “clear and present danger,” the U.S. government considers speech limitation to be out of keeping with our First Amendment rights.
Expecting school officials to reprimand people who use these words may create an unofficial policy against students’ rights to display their bigotry or lack of sensitivity.
If language leads to a dangerous environment, it is unacceptable. However, how can one determine whether language has such an effect?
Certainly language can be used to systematically marginalize people.
Whether or not such language is considered legal, words that add to the marginalization of groups have no place in our society.
It is crucial for individuals to speak up of their own volition when hateful or misguided language is used. Presenting better arguments than those with which you disagree combats ignorance while protecting freedom of expression.
