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, 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 sa
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Speech Codes, Commentary Spring, Discourage Prohibit, Liberty Mill, Stuart Mill, Colleges Universities, Dantiki Alrighty, hate speech, Gangsta Try, Additionally CRT, Legal Obligation, public expression, moral obligation, slippery slope, speech codes, speech hate, college campuses, freedom speech, marketplace ideas, speech hate speech, hate speech bad, free speech, hate speech hate, prohibiting hate speech, whereas public expression,
Approximate Word count = 5126
Approximate Pages = 21 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
