Free speech is considered one of the essential values in the society. It protects the democratic process and ensures the diversity of thoughts and beliefs. Numerous people and groups have continuously fight for this precious right, like the UC Davis students who faced pepper spray to protest the chancellor 's wrongful behavior. Yet in recent decades, with the increasing cases of hate speech and free speech-related crime, many wonder if free speech needs some restrictions. In early February, the huge protest in UC Berkeley against Yiannopoulos, who was accused of racism and being misogynistic, caused huge damage to the public as the protesters started to act violently to stop Yiannopoulos ' speech. Both parties use the power of speech in the wrong way, and it is hard to judge which is morally worse. People started to question the value of free speech, as it brought unfairness and hurt instead of equality and justice to people.
In "Hate speech" and "There 's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It 's a Good Thing, Too," Robin Lakoff and Stanley Fish discuss how it 's necessary to have a restriction on free speech to so that the power of speech can be beneficial to the society.
When talking about free speech, people generally believe that it is powerful and unlimited. Yet, Lakoff states that giving speech too much freedom is devaluing the power of
…show more content…
Comparing the above two arguments, Lakoff states that putting no limitations on language is contradictory to protecting the First Amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the value of speech. People who believe that it is unnecessary to put limitations on free speech do not consider speech to have negative impacts on people. However, this denial of the world-changing power of speech makes the beneficial power of speech less strong as well. The more freedom that is given to speech, or the more denial of the world-changing power that speech has, the less people will recognize and prove the power of