Limiting the First Amendment

     Recently in class, we have been discussing the ideas of speech codes. A speech code is any rule that limits or restricts speech. It is used to prevent hate speech and fighting words. Many individuals argue that speech codes are a violation of our First Amendment rights. Even though some speech codes many be considered too vague or broad to be fair and successful, I still believe that some speech codes are necessary in certain cases.
     Hate speech must be prohibited when necessary, because it can often be a  breach of the peace. The First Amendment-although it protects free speech-does not protect harassment. Hate speech is not only offensive to the individuals it targets, but it can usually be considered a form of harassment. It often tends to promote a violent reaction, thus distrubing the peace. In class we focused on the use of speech codes in universities. After class discussions and assigments, I have come to the conclusion that they should be allowed as long as they focus on a direct issue at hand. Speech codes must have a sole purpose, otherwise they are broad, confusing, and useless.
    If universities do not limit some forms of freedom of speech, then the campuses can turn in to chaos. In almost all cases, speech codes are created to protect others. If people can go around harassing anyone they disagree with or don't like, then how can anyone feel safe? It is important for universities to have the best interest of their students in mind, and if that requires them to slightly limit the students' rights freedom of speech, then it should be allowed.
    I believe that speech codes must exist in some cases for the purpose of protection. Although I agree with FIRE, when they state that speech codes can be unfair because they often limit someone's rights, I also believe that sometimes these limitations are necessary. Those who create speech codes must be sure that they restrict the First Amendment just enough, so that it prevents violence and disruption, but does not completly violate anyone's rights. More often than not, the gray area is what is most successful. For example, if everyone has complete freedom to do anything they want, it endagers the lives and safety of others. On the other hand, if individuals have no rights, then the situation is unjust. For this reason, not everything can be black and white. Sometimes a mix is what is more successful. If individuals have limited restrictions on their rights, a good mix of freedom and control exists, thus allowing for a happy and successful country.