American college kids are starting a movement to revolutionize the concept of free speech. Is this to comment on the importance of protecting people against prosecution for voicing their opinions? How about to acknowledge how free speech enables people to start a dialogue about differing opinions? No. Instead, they are using their first amendment right to promote limiting everyone else’s first amendment right.

What?

It is this idea that personal feelings should be placed above a written standard that throws out the possibility of equality. As soon as we consider limiting free speech, we create a standard of inequality where speech is considered right or wrong. People may claim "Well this is good, because there IS right speech and wrong speech." Wrong. Free speech is not limited to those who agree with you. Hypocrites are people who claim a standard and then fail to meet it themselves. If you claim that your way is the right way, and someone rebuttals and says no, my way is the right way, who is right? This forces people into an endless cycle of back and forth arguing, trying to make a point to others who have no intention of trying to understand or change their perspective.

Furthermore, the quickest way to get someone to resent your opinion is to demand that they agree with it. Respect is earned, and people who feel otherwise probably aren’t willing to put in the effort to earn yours. This doesn’t mean we should go around disrespecting people just because, but this does mean that if you want someone to listen to your cause calling people “snowflakes” and “bigots” probably isn’t a good place to start.

But, be honest with yourself. Are you actually trying to convince people to join your cause and warm people up to your opinion? Or, are you just trying to yell that “I am right and that is the end of the conversation"? I’ve heard people say motive isn’t important in social issues like this but I disagree. Motive is key when, and if, you want to humanize people. Motive can help people understand that a lot of times others aren’t trying to do wrong by you, and if you feel they misspoke it can be addressed in a civil manner acknowledging that "We may disagree but that doesn’t mean I wish harm against you." However, if someone decides to use "free speech" to incite violence that leads to injury or abuse of your person, they are not protected by the first amendment; this is a key distinction where physical harm does not equate name calling. It is important to not downplay physical harm, implying that if someone calls you a name you don’t like the distinction between an attacker using their words and using their fists against you is nonexistent. This is not to say words do not have a mental impact, but it is to say that the solution is not accommodation in the form of censorship.

And for those who consider feelings to outweigh free speech, you are ultimately doing a disservice to yourself and others. When you are promoting the idea of being coddled, and the inability to function if people don’t conform to your beliefs, you are seriously downplaying any sort of strength or endurance that you could exercise within yourself.

The reality is there is not a perfect world where every feeling will be accommodated and every opinion will be validated, so you will keep facing this vicious journey of fighting a losing war. And it IS a losing war. At the end of it all, no matter how many times you claim that someone’s opinion isn’t valid, you are incorrect. Cohen v California specifically protects the “right to use offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.” So, stop trying to shoulder the burden of other people’s words. Free speech isn’t a privilege, it’s a right.