Joe
Resolved: That colleges and universities have a moral obligation to prohibitthe public expression of hate speech on their campuses.Alexander, Larry. BANNING HATE SPEECH AND THE STICKS AND STONES DEFENSE. Constitutional Commentary. Spring, 1996In addressing this issue, I, like most of the scholars, shall take "hate speech" to mean epithets conventionally understood to be insulting references to characteristics such as race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference.First, it is insulting, and insults are psychologically wounding and cause emotional distress. Second, it creates unequal opportunity in the school and workplace environments. Third, it silences those who are its targets, depriving them of their freedom of speech. Fourth, it offends by flouting social norms regarding proper verbal behavior. And, fifth, its expression is a speech act that shows disrespect for or even subordinates its targets.Look, labling something as subjective is not the same as saying it does not exist or is not important. There are documented studies, I assume, where the psychological effects of hate speech are shown. That may be subjective in so far as it will not effect everyone in the sa
2) Major point: Chaplinsky was a unanimous 1942 decision, but the court began eroding it almost before the ink was dry. The fallacy of the argument is that because Xhappens, Z must also happen (often assuming no middle ground- Y- or notrecognizing a "step ladder" of varying levels and extremes upon which tobuild a rational understanding of whatever the topic may be). On the affirmative, you want to make a stronger argument. Perhaps speaking badly of capitalists will in the future be called "hatespeech. All ofthis, it seems to me, causes great problems in crafting regulations whicharen't at once likely to be very subjectively defined as well as verydebatable. I am not going to bury you with more rhetoric about the problem. However, you cannot choose not to hear someone on their soap box in the quad, and this is what we should b arguing not whether the internet is public speech on campus. The danger, however, is thatuniversities may not always be dominated by this type of thinking. The slippery slope is a fallacy because it occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place. We're talking about in a university which has the ability to control ideas to fit its ends. Instead of deliniating between seeing something and hearing it, and justifying or dejustifying something based on this flimsy and somewhat arbitrary distinction, try arguing that hate speech *isn't* just speech and has stronger reprecussions. For example, my mom has never seen a commercial or read a magazine article that said "You should be afraid of all black people", yet, if she's walking down the street and a black person is coming in the other direction, her gut reaction is going to be to reach for her purse and hold on to it just a little tighter. If the idea is a biased bit of purely negative hate speech, this does help the MPI. The obvious objection is that it's difficult to discern aspeaker's intent. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First *Amendment did not protect "fighting words.
Common topics in this essay:
Speech Codes,
Commentary Spring,
Discourage Prohibit,
Liberty Mill,
Stuart Mill,
Colleges Universities,
Dantiki Alrighty,
hate speech,
Gangsta Try,
Additionally CRT,
Legal Obligation,
public expression,
speech codes,
moral obligation,
slippery slope,
speech hate,
freedom speech,
marketplace ideas,
college campuses,
speech hate speech,
hate speech hate,
speech bad,
hate speech bad,
prohibiting hate speech,
term moral obligation,
|
Acceptance Essays
