I believe in the First Amendment. I do not like cutting people off and blocking them from saying what they think because it does not fit what others think should be discussed. I don't like it when it happens on American universities, as happened in this case, and I don't like it when books are taken out of a public library so that people can't read them. I believe free speech is critical to the American democracy.

I took my camera to UC Berkeley after I read that some students connected to an organization called BridgeUSA who believe in crossing partisan divides by allowing all points of view to speak on the campus, were blocked from speaking their minds, in some cases physically blocked where violence was either threatened or where the scene became violent.

This speaker, Manu Meel, is one of the cofounders of BridgeUSA, an organization that believes that good governance starts with constructive political discussion. They work with America’s future leaders on college campuses to foster spaces wherein a diverse range of ideas can engage one another through the practice of responsible discourse.

It was founded in 2016 at the universities of Notre Dame, CU-Boulder, and UC Berkeley in response to growing polarization on campus. Its work emphasizes the importance of empathy and understanding, ideological diversity and solution-oriented politics. By engaging college kids in constructive discussions, they feel that they are equipping the next generation of leaders with the skills necessary for navigating conflict, finding solutions across differences and building bridges in their communities.

The recent discussions around free speech at the University of California, Berkeley, and similar institutions reflect a complex and evolving debate that touches on issues of political correctness, racial issues, and the boundaries of acceptable discourse in academic environments. This contemporary perspective on free speech often contrasts with the original Free Speech Movement (FSM) of the 1960s.

In recent years, some groups and individuals at UC Berkeley and beyond have argued that the concept of political correctness—efforts to avoid language or actions that could offend or exclude marginalized groups—has become a form of censorship that limits free expression. They contend that universities, as bastions of free thought and debate, should permit a wide range of viewpoints, including those that may be controversial or unpopular, without fear of retribution or censorship.

This perspective on free speech emphasizes the importance of exposing students to diverse opinions to foster critical thinking and debate. Proponents argue that shielding individuals from controversial ideas does not prepare them for real-world complexities and differing viewpoints.

They advocate for minimal restrictions on speech, except in cases of direct harm or threats.
However, this stance has sparked significant debate and protest, particularly when controversial speakers are invited to campus. Critics argue that some speech can create an unsafe or hostile environment for marginalized groups, thus infringing on their rights and safety. They distinguish between free speech and hate speech, suggesting that the latter has no place in a university setting designed to be inclusive and supportive of all students.

The tension between these perspectives has led to protests and counter-protests at UC Berkeley and other universities, highlighting the challenges of balancing free speech rights with the need to create a safe and inclusive environment for all students. The debate often centers on where to draw the line between protecting free expression and preventing speech that could be considered hate speech or that could contribute to a hostile environment for marginalized groups.

If you found this video interesting and appreciate my efforts to present points of view, please support my continued video postings by clicking the Thanks button below the video screen.
Thank you