PHI 2630 1st Edition Lecture 4Outline of Last Lecture I. Normative Ethical Theories: the branch of ethics concerned with giving a general account of what is right and what is wrong.II. Consequentialisma. Utilitarianismb. Perfectionist Consequentialismc. Rule ConsequentialismIII. Natural Lawa. Theory of Intrinsic Valueb. The Doctrine of Double EffectIV. Kantian Moral Theorya. Humanity Formulationb. Universal Law FormulationV. Rights-Based Moral TheoryVI. Virtue EthicsVII. Ethics of Prima Facie Dutya. Ross’s Theory of Intrinsic Value and Prima Facie DutiesVIII. Social Contract Theorya. John Rawls’s TheoryThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.Outline of Current Lecture II. Stanford’s Regulation of SpeechIII. Why the Regulation is In-Line with the First AmendmentIV. Why Face-to-Face Insults are not Worthy of First Amendment Protectiona. Immediacy of Injuryb. Purpose of the First AmendmentV. Factors that Indicate the Non-Speech-Provoking Character of the Attacksa. Visceral Emotional Responseb. Pre-Emptive Naturec. Societal Position of Victimsd. Double StandardCurrent LectureI. The following work is based on responses to racist speech and other forms of verbal discriminatory harassment on college campuses (Stanford in particular) and what measures the universities should take in response.II. The Regulation: All Stanford students have a “right to equal access to a Stanford education without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or national and ethnic origin.” The regulation prohibits hate speech on campus because it interferes with this right of students. “In the context of discriminatory harassment, ‘fighting’ words or nonverbal symbols are words, pictures, orsymbols that, by virtue of their form, are commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of their sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, and national and ethnic origin.”a. Face-to-face insults fall within the “fighting words” exception to First Amendmentprotection. i. Such insults are akin to receiving a slap in the face, so the harm to the victim is “clear and pleasant,” therefore not protected by the First Amendment. ii. Since racial insults are intended to injure the victim rather than discover truth or initiate discussion, such speech is not in line with the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.iii. Therefore, Stanford’s regulation of racist speech violates neither First Amendment principle nor precedent.III. Face-to-face racial insults are undeserving of First Amendment protection:a. (1) Immediacy of Injury: the experience is similarly instantaneous to receiving a slap in the face. There is neither opportunity for intermediary reflection on the idea conveyed nor an opportunity for responsive speech.b. (2) Purpose of the First Amendment: the purpose is to foster the greatest amount of speech. Racial insults disserve that purpose and instead function as apreemptive strike. Once the blow is struck, it is unlikely that dialogue will follow. The perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim.IV. The fighting words doctrine anticipates that the verbal slap in the face of insulting wordswill provoke a violent response, resulting in a breach of the peace. When racial insults are hurled at minorities, the response may be silence or flight rather than a fight, but thepreemptive effect on further speech is the same.V. Often, women and racial minorities find themselves speechless in the face of discriminatory verbal attacks. This is the product of several factors that indicate the non-speech character of these verbal assaultsa. Visceral Emotional Response: the attack produces an instinctive, defensive psychological reaction that interferes with any reasoned response. It produces physical symptoms that temporarily disable the victim and the perpetrators oftenuse these words with the intention of producing this effect.b. Pre-Emptive Nature: words of response to such verbal attacks may never be forthcoming because speech is usually an inadequate response. When attacked with words that denote one’s subhuman status and untouchability, there is little that can be said to redress either the emotional or reputational injury. This holds particularly true when the epithet resonates with beliefs widely held in society and, as a preservation of widespread beliefs, is more likely to preempt speech than other fighting words. Segregation and other forms of racist speech injure victims because of their dehumanizing and excluding message. Each individual message gains its power because of the cumulative and reinforcing effect of countless similar messages that are conveyed in a society where racism is ubiquitous. Any response is inadequate to counter the hundreds of years of societal defamation that one word carried with it.c. Societal Position of Victims: the fighting words doctrine presupposes an encounter between two persons of relatively equal power who have been acculturated to respond to face-to-face insults with violence – the fighting words doctrine is a paradigm based on a white male point of view. The fighting words doctrine’s responsiveness to this male stance in the world and its blindness to the cultural experience of women is another example of how neutral principles of law reflect the values of those who are dominant.d. Double Standard: part of the culture of racial domination through violence is the paradoxical expectation on the part of whites that black males will accept insult from whites without protest, yet will become violent without provocation. This combines two assumptions: (1) that blacks as a group are more violent and (2) that as inferior persons, blacks have no right to feel insulted.e. In most situations, minorities correctly perceive that a violent response to fighting words will result in a risk to their own life and limb, a risk that forces targets to remain silent and submissive. This is most obvious when women submit to sexually assaultive speech or when the racist name caller is in a more powerful position – the boss,
View Full Document
Unlocking...