Resolved: That colleges and universities have a moral obligation to prohibit
the public expression of hate speech on their campuses.
Alexander, Larry. BANNING HATE SPEECH AND THE STICKS AND STONES DEFENSE. Constitutional Commentary. Spring, 1996
In 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 same way, but if you were to go
around hitting people, it would hurt them each a little differently (the
strong guys wouldnt be hurt, the old ladies might die).
People are not alawys able to think perfectly rationally - I know hes just an
idiot if he calls me some bad name which I'm not, but I still feel upset and
I think an interesting angle to this is, how much different is hate crime
from ordinary insults? If i call someone a "stupid ignorant jerk" is that
really categorically different than calling someone a racial slur?
I think the intent behind the speech is worth examining. For the "stupid
ignorant jerk" i might just have been upset at them or clash with their
personality. It is an indivi...