Freedom of Speech

I found myself agreeing with Derek Bok’s essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.” I have always thought it to be hypocritical to say freedom of speech and then not allowed to say certain things. Logically, the two contradict one another. Even in a situation with “hate speech,” one needs to be allowed to speak, even if what they are speaking about is immoral. If we restrict speech from others, what prohibits others from restricting our speech from us? If someone wants to give “hate speech” on a campus, they should be allowed to. While I think this would be a very bad idea, if someone wants to do this, let them. If you know what is right and wrong, what will someone else’s opinion matter? While we may not like what someone is saying, to allow them to say it is one of the few costs to be able to say what we want. It seems like the current way to deal with a situation is to say what others want to hear rather than what one actually wants to thinks about a situation. When our rights don’t interfere with the rights of others, they don’t need to be restricted. It’s when our speech harasses others or directly interferes with their rights that speech needs to be restricted. I often don’t say what’s on my mind simply because I am afraid to offend people, and most people wouldn’t realize that in most cases I am joking. Although I feel pressured to not say certain things, I have never felt that my right to say them has been violated, I have always felt that I could say them if I truly desired to. In summary, you can’t restrict certain speech and turn around and say that there is freedom of speech, if someone wants to say something, let them say it, it’s their right and yours.