'Perspectives on Free-Speech Zones on College Campuses Essay\r'

'Naturally, legion(predicate) negative con nonations fill out along with the term â€Å" rid-speech zone. ” The wording alone automatically insinuates that publish speech should non be allowed everywhere, which is only the true intention of the liking. Sometimes the dear of free speech is taken advantage of; such(prenominal) as in plastered rallies and balks, where disruptive noise, violence, and destruction a lot occurs. Universities hold a responsibility to their students of providing a sensibly safe and undisruptive environment to learn and excel in.\r\nUniversities ar not creating â€Å"free-speech zones” to limit free speech, but sort of to asseverate a secure atmosphere that is contributory to concentration and higher learning. Universities should be able to control a certain level of safety on campus in whatever way they choose. â€Å"The University reserves the right to relocate or pottycel the activity collect to hoo-hah from excessive nois e levels, traffic entanglement, or if the safety of individuals is in question” ( watt Virginia University’s disciple Handbook 91).\r\nThey atomic number 18 not undermining the right of free speech that we as Americans legally hold, but are creating an appropriate means for demonstrators to voice their opinions without causing superfluous disruption and chaos in inappropriate places on campus. An issue I do have with this idea of a â€Å"free-speech zone” is that there isn’t a clear definition of when or where these zones should be used. Who is to declare whether or not the voicing of a certain opinion or idea requires the use of a â€Å"free-speech zone”? If what constitutes the use of a â€Å"free-speech zone” was intermit defined then the use of such â€Å"zones” could be more affective and appropriate.\r\nAs stated by Robert J. Scott, protest zones have been used at many political conventions and other major events. â€Å"Pr otest zones can be reasonable restrictions that allow free-speech rights to be denotative while decreasing safety concerns and preventing undue disruption” (Scott 92). With the history of violence and destruction that is associated with protests, it is only immanent that certain precautions be taken to prevent such problems. It is too vague to say the free manner of views or opinions may not â€Å"disrupt the familiar function of the university,” as stated in the West Virginia University’s student handbook.\r\nWho decides what the â€Å"normal function” really is, or when it is being â€Å"disrupted? ” If a university decides to order the use of â€Å"free-speech zones” then they should be able to reserve a clear and concise description of when, and for what purpose, these â€Å"zones” should be used. One of a universities top priorities is to make their campus as safe and secure as possible, and if â€Å"free-speech zones† or â€Å"protest zones” are what they feel are necessary to maintain that security then they should be able to go through them.\r\nThe problem really comes down to whether or not these â€Å"zones” are used appropriately. If used extensively, and at levels that are unnecessary for the safety of students, then human rights issues could easily come into play. But if used in a smart way, such as for larger demonstrations of liberty of speech, like protests and rallies, then they could be helpful in preventing destruction and/or distraction on university campuses. â€Å"Requiring those expressing dissent to obey the law while doing so does not constitute repression” (Scott 92).\r\n'