Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought

In the article titled, "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought," Jonathan Rauch concludes that free speech should not be censored on college campuses.. Rauch gives the reason that a restriction on free speech stops us from gaining knowledge. And in order to gain knowledge we must be willing to offend in the pursuit of truth and to check and be checked. He also goes to point out if it is a threat of violence or just our ideas that are being hurt. Rauch also argues that it's wrong to make a comparison between words with violence. There is a clear comparison when one compares bullets to actual bullets and saying they are similar. Hurting someone with words and hurting them with bullets is another thing.

Rauch addresses the issue of why we should tolerate bigotry. He goes on to say that supporters of this avoid the question when asked who is to decide what speech is considered bigoted and which is just critical. The answer to that is that the right-thinking people are the ones that will decide what is and isn't bigoted speech for in reality all it sums up to is that people whose opinions we disagree with or dislike should be suppressed. The reason why it should be tolerated is for the alternative is worse. The second opinion he handles is that opponents just want to block out hate and intimidation no criticism and inquiry. He argues that any guidelines that establish a distinction between vicious opinions from unpopular would be too complex to implement. If you were to restrict an opinion then you would have to restrict the one that follows and so on. Also politicians would blur the lines to try to use them to that which is more beneficial for them. The third rebuttal he addresses is that "In practice it is possible to distinguish verbal harassment from legitimate criticism by the hurtful intent of the speaker." Rauch argues that the even legitimate criticism may be intended to hurt as well that in order to put the intent of the words on trial we must put the defendants mind on trial.

The fourth rebuttal Rauch addresses is "real people are being hurt, and so protective action is morally imperative" he argues that there is no concrete proof to show that offensive speech and opinions may do upon and individual besides that of damaging their feelings or defined how seriously ones feelings must be hurt to qualify as verbally wounded. There is no indicator to tell which words wound and which do not. If we are all entitled to not be upset then all criticism, scientific inquiry even humor becomes impossible. The fifth rebuttal Rauch brings up is it is hardly reasonable to justify here-and-now pain in the name of abstract principles or of the knowledge which may or may not ever be produced." He argues that the pain is very real and concrete for offensive speakers may be sentenced by political authorizes to prison, privation or in Salman Rushdie's case death. It is not a mere distinction