Freedom of speech is one of the determining factors of civil society and youth - its brightest representative. Very often, due to some political reasons or personal concerns of senior management (of political and educational institutions), people face problems with the expression of their point of view. However, these concerns are justified when it comes to such dangerous topics such as racial, gender inequality, nazism or personal beliefs. Restrictions on public activities or on freedom of expression very strongly affect people's attitude to public authorities. Different opinions are very easy to get along in economically developed societies, such as the Scandinavian countries. Obviously, a major role is played here by the fear of diversity of views and values.
Lukianoff and Scott are both right that free speech zones have significant disadvantages. For example, Lukianoff mentions several cases where the free speech zones affected the formation of a negative image of university (the story with "Sissies" T-shirts) or when the code of the free speech zones is quite blurred. On the other hand, he understands that the First Amendment includes only state institutions and that fact do does not solve the problem completely. Scott points out the great political effect of these areas because they create an environment for the voluntary expression of thoughts. I find this argument constructive, as Scott argues further the negative effects of restrictions escalated into large protests. I cannot find strong biases in words of Lukianoff or Scott, both of them were right because they look at the problem from the outside of the box, objectively justifying their views. I must admit that the words of Scott sounded more convincing because he offered a specific solution while Lukianoff mentioned most criticism, but does not solve the problem.
In my opinion, free speech areas are consistent with the First Amendment. Tolerance and freedom of expression are the keys for the development of civil society and the USA especially. American authorities should be interested in the development of thoughtful people who are willing to solve rational issues. Strongly radical thought will not be able to spread too much because the majority of students who do not perceive the idea will protest against it. In any case, these zones will develop critical thinking among students.
Nevertheless, questions remain about the negative characters or speech that threatens society. I mentioned above that such things would not be widespread among the students because of the strong social taboos and experience of past generations, which showed that the much radical solution of social problems leads to even bigger problems. Moreover, such radical movements will not many supporters because Americans value freedom more than anything else and such statements absolutely oppose collective thought. Nevertheless, I stand for the idea that such zones should have their moderators, independent people who are able to channel young people`s thoughts in order to solve problems rather than empty talk.
If to speak about my school, I cannot mention any strong restrictions. Our teachers treat us loyally and encourage different critical thinking activities. In my opinion, it is beneficial for both sides: teachers have the possibility to understand the needs and desires of youth and the latter can develop in the benevolent environment and apply their thoughts to actual issues (teachers are set to be moderators of our discussions).
However, if the mentors act as an aggressive and unbalanced party, what will be the possible punishment for them? The best way out of this situation will be a public debate against the professor, but it is necessary to set against an opponent with a great sense of humor. Firstly, it will be a great lesson for him because the huge amount of people will not listen to him completely, and perceive his ideas as an absolute nonsense. If he refuses to participate in the public debate, it will be a blow to the reputation of the professor after all, in other words, he will publicly admit defeat. There is another way. Students can do a lot of Cube video or demotivators with his speech or quotations and share them in social networks. The third way is to write a comedic public response and upload it to the same resource, which "express condolences to professor Churchill about the way he lives in so cruel and violent world."
