If freedom means anything, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear. Free speech has been an important topic for years, controversies over various aspects of the 1st Amendment have plagued America for centuries. The boundaries of free speech are being pushed more than ever in history, with people trying to understand where free speech applies in areas like campuses and the Internet. Many institutions have created a place for students to express themselves on campus. While other places like Europe create a distinctive boundary to free speech. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Can you really practice free speech on campus? In the article “The President of Brown University: A Safe Space for Free Expression” by Christine Paxson. According to Paxson, private universities have the right to limit the free speech of their students. But we tend not to take such drastic measures because private institutions are a place of knowledge where students debate uncomfortable topics like racial inequality, slavery, and war. Universities like different opinions expressed by students with different ideologies because it creates the flow of ideas. Students should be able to learn and discuss with others of different religions and ideologies. The result of this freedom of speech in institutions plays an important role in the learning process of students to help them become themselves. Brown University studies found that students who had an environment in which to discuss and express their opinions were more creative and innovative than others who did not have an environment in which to practice free speech. Paxson uses several examples of Safe Spaces over the decades, showing how safe spaces began as a place where students could practice hate speech against others such as gays, lesbians, and trans people. Eventually it became a place where marginalized students gathered to discuss their experiences. Universities have created “Safe Spaces,” small portions of campus where students can practice free speech on topics of their choosing. These safe spaces tend to take shape as certain clubs such as religious groups and ethnic groups so that people can express opinions and experiences with other like-minded people. In the article “Sorry, Guys, the 1st Amendment Protects Hate Speech” by Michael McGough. In McGough's article, a survey was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for Yale University. Surveyors found that 87% of students agreed that there is educational value in understanding the ideas and opinions of other students who may disagree with their own. While the remaining 21% of students agree that the 1st Amendment is obsolete and can no longer be enforced in today's society. Debate continues over whether hate speech is covered by the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has not yet officially ruled that hate speech is covered by the 1st Amendment, even though hate speech has not officially been covered by the 1st Amendment. Some forms of hate speech are not protected. For example, in the 1952 case Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court outlawed statements that exposed religious and racial groups to contempt/hatred unless the speaker could demonstrate that the statements were true. Hate speech is not protected in the workplace, racial slurs with the intent to threaten others cancreate a hostile environment that courts treat as forms of discrimination. While the courts also address discrimination in the form of hate speech at universities, they are more contentious. In addition to 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 limit free speech if it causes harm or hatred to certain groups of students. What can America learn from Europeans' free speech doctrine? 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 would 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 states: "This transatlantic difference is largely the product of Europe's own history with Nazism." This is because many Europeans share a history with Nazism and current generations are still grappling with it. Versteeg also shares his family's past experiences with Nazism, stating: “On the eve of the Second World War, my working-class great-grandparents, like a large number of 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 prospects of finding a factory job. Those who knew them insist that anti-Semitism did not motivate their decision to join the party. However, they gradually began to accept the party's sinister ideology. After the war, my great-grandparents were imprisoned because of their affiliation with the NSB.” Europeans are committed to repressing incitement to hatred against Nazism and atrocious acts such as the Holocaust to preserve their image and forget the mistakes of the past. Because of these incidents, after World War II Europeans created the Council of Europe which adopted the European Convention on Human Rights. This system protects free speech to a certain extent and believes that free speech is important but must be balanced with human dignity. This results in a limitation of freedom of expression if it serves to spread, incite, promote or justify hatred. Because of this, Europeans stopped the sale of Nazi memorabilia, Germany banned any political parties with Nazi ideologies, and even led Australia to arrest a Holocaust-denying historian. According to Versteeg, this is why events like Charlottesville shock Europeans when swastika flags fly freely in the air. Theorists theorize that America's free speech doctrines are used to create an immunity to offensive speech, making hate speech increasingly less effective. Versteeg offers another point of view that the American doctrine of free speech can be dangerous for letting Nazi ideologies loose and could lead to another Nazi party. Many believe that white supremacy is growing with the recent election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. According to Versteeg, a government system that does not police hate speech or other vile ideas places many of the burdens on citizens to police and govern hate speech. The First Amendment covers hate speech in America, but we can learn from Europe's free speech doctrine and create a middle ground that most.