If freedom means anything, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear. Free speech has been a major topic for years, and controversies over different aspects of the 1st Amendment have plagued America for centuries. The boundaries of free speech are being pushed further than ever before in history, as people try to understand where free speech applies in areas such as campuses and the Internet. Many institutions have created space for students to express themselves on campus. While other countries like Europe create a distinct boundary to freedom of expression. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Can You Really Practice Free Speech on Campus? In the article “Brown University President: A Safe Space for Freedom of Expression” by Christine Paxson. According to Paxson, private universities have the right to restrict the freedom of expression of their students. But there is a tendency not to take such drastic measures, because private institutions are a place of learning where uncomfortable topics such as racial inequality, slavery, and war are discussed by students. Universities like different opinions expressed by students with different ideologies because it creates a flow of ideas. Students should be able to learn and debate with others of different religions and ideologies. The result of this freedom of expression in institutions plays an important role in the learning process of students to help them become their own person. Brown University studies found that students who had an environment to debate and express their opinions were more creative and innovative than those who did not have an environment to practice free speech. Paxson uses different examples of safe spaces over the decades, showing how safe spaces began as a place where students could practice hate speech toward other people such as gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Eventually becoming a place where marginalized students came together to discuss their experiences. Universities have created “safe spaces,” which are small parts of campus where students can practice free speech on topics of their choosing. These safe spaces tend to take the form of certain clubs such as religious groups and ethnic groups so that people can express their opinions and experiences with other like-minded people. In the article "Sorry, Kids, the 1st Amendment Protects 'Hate Speech'" by Michael McGough. In McGoughs' article, a survey was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for Yale University. Surveyors found that 87% of students agree that it is helpful to understand the ideas and opinions of other students who may disagree with their own. While the remaining 21% of students agreed that the 1st Amendment was outdated and could no longer be applied in today's society. Debates over whether hate speech is covered by the 1st Amendment continue. The Supreme Court has still not officially ruled that hate speech is covered by the 1st Amendment, even though hate speech is not officially covered by the 1st Amendment. Some forms of hate speech are not protected. For example, in the case of Beauharnais v. Illinois Supreme Court in 1952,statements that expose religious and racial groups to contempt/hatred were prohibited unless the speaker could demonstrate that those statements were true. Hate speech is not protected in the workplace, racist insults intended to threaten others can create a hostile environment that courts consider a form of discrimination. Although courts also address discrimination in the form of hate speech at universities, these issues are more controversial. Besides these situations, the 1st Amendment protects hate speech, especially in state governments and universities. But the exception is private universities that are not bound by the 1st Amendment like public universities. Thus, private universities have the ability to restrict free speech if it causes harm or hatred to certain groups of students. What can America learn from the European doctrine of free speech? In the article “What Europe Can Teach America About Free Speech” by Mila Versteeg. In the article, Versteeg highlights how current racial protests such as the Charlottesville riots could have been stopped in Europe. According to Versteeg, much of the hate speech we witnessed in the United States could have been criminalized in European countries. Versteeg says: “This transatlantic difference is largely a product of Europe’s own history with Nazism. » Indeed, many Europeans share a history with Nazism and current generations are still confronted with it. Versteeg also shares his own family's experiences with Nazism, stating: "On the eve of World War II, my working-class great-grandparents, like many Dutch people, joined the National Socialist Movement (NSB), a Dutch movement aligned with the Nazis. party. My family was poor, and joining the NSB improved my great-grandfather's chances of getting a job in a factory. Those who knew them insist that anti-Semitism did not motivate their decision to join the party. Yet, they gradually began to embrace the party's sinister ideology. After the war, my great-grandparents were imprisoned because of their affiliation with the NSB.” The desire of Europeans to suppress hate speech against Nazism and heinous acts committed such as the Holocaust is to preserve their image and forget their past mistakes. Due to these incidents, after World War II, Europeans created the Council of Europe which adopted the European Convention on Human Rights. This system protects freedom of expression to a certain extent and believes that freedom of expression is important but must be balanced with human dignity. This leads to restricting freedom of expression if it serves to propagate, incite, promote or justify hatred. Because of this, Europeans stopped the sale of Nazi memorabilia, Germany banned any political party with Nazi ideologies, and even led Australia to arrest a historian who denied the Holocaust. According to Versteeg, this is why events like Charlottesville baffle Europeans when swastika flags fly freely in the air. Theorists theorize that American free speech doctrines are used to create immunity against offensive speech, making hate speech less and less effective. Versteeg offers another view that the American doctrine of free speech can be dangerous if it gives free rein to Nazi ideologies and could lead to the.