I chose this article because it speaks upon the actions that North Carolina has taken on the topic of free speech on campuses. "Over the summer, The North Carolina General Assembly passed a campus free-speech bill, turning it into law and calling into question the legality of protests of speech on campus." (Sessoms, August 24, 2017). This new law went into effect after a vote was placed 80 to 31. This bill states that anyone under the jurisdiction of the university who "substantially disrupts the functioning of the constituent institution or substantially interferes with the protected free expression rights of others, including protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in and listen to expressive activity" has the right to be disciplined. (Sessoms, August 14, 2017). With this new law in place, the Board of Governors also are initiating a Committee of Free Expression that will meet once a year that will distinguish "any barriers to free expression on North Carolina university campuses, how the administration is handling these barriers and any criticisms the committee sees fit to include" (Sessoms, August 24, 2017).
This article stresses the importance of how we treat free speech on campuses, and how the way we react and treat the type of speech, or speakers, that are coming on campus, ultimately effects the students feeling towards the subject at hand. Lisa Barrett, a psychology professor speaks about emotional violence is more harmful than physical violence. Barrett is on the side that prohibts campus speakers and believes that speaking about certain topics are more traumitizing to students than not. This article dismisses Barrett's claims in stating that the only way it will seriously effect students is by telling them that certain types of speech will effect them. Ultimately the students make the decision whether or not to go listen to the speakers and their idea's. "We have to stop telling students free speech is traumatizing them", is the main point that Jesse Singal is trying to get across to the reader.
This article correlates directly with the article I posted before with a Texas A&M philosophy professor, Tommy Curry, who spoke about how foolish the concept that white people would understand racism. He even went as far as saying how foolish Martin Luther King Jr. was to think that white people can be "regarded as reasonable". Curry even goes as far as justifying killing white people in order to be "equal" and "liberated". This article justifies the support that one side of free speech is seen more acceptable than the other. If you think about it, isn't that similar to what the neo-Nazi's are saying? Just instead of blacks or Hispanics being the target of violent actions it's white people, but yet that man faced more threats and was targeted more than some neo-Nazi supporters.
This article focuses on the right-wing party, the conservative side, and how they are obsessed with protecting “free speech,” but only the kind they agree with. The author pulls examples from real life experiences he has gone through from death threats, to changing locks in his office. He speaks upon how campuses welcome people like Ann Coulter onto their campus, but others are fired when speaking out about neo-Nazisms, and speaking out about white supremacy. "What is shocking is that while the right-wing media is wringing its hands about suppressive leftists, openly racist and fascist-sympathizing organizations are recruiting young white people on campuses. That conservative pundits have precious little to say when campuses are defiled with swastikas, nooses and racist fliers but cry foul when people like Richard Spencer, Mr. Yiannopoulos and Ms. Coulter are met with protest has become a sick paradox of our time." (Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, August 14, 2017) To summarize, this article states the diversity and acceptance that "free speech" on college campuses have, and how people discriminate what is socially acceptable and what is not.