DOC PREVIEW
FSU PHI 2630 - Strossen

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

PHI 2630 1st Edition Lecture 5Outline of Last 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 StandardOutline of Current Lecture VI. The First Amendment and Constitutionally Unprotected CategoriesVII. Harm Principlea. Mill’s reason for protecting free speechb. Expressive HarmVIII. Nadine Strossen, Why Censoring Pornography Would Not Reduce Discrimination or Violence Against Womena. Assumptions Pro-Censorship Feminists Makei. Exposure leads to violenceii. Suppression would reduce violenceiii. Censorship would effectively suppress pornographyb. Four Types of Evidence Relied on by Pro-Censorship Advocates to Make the Causal Connectioni. Lab Researchii. Correlational Dataiii. Anecdotal Dataiv. Studies of Sex OffendersCurrent LectureI. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or These 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.of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.a. Constitutionally unprotected categories: i. Libelii. Incitement to lawlessnessiii. Obscenityiv. Fighting wordsII. Harm Principle: “A liberty-limiting principle according to which a government may justifiably pass laws to limit the liberty of its citizens in order to prohibit individuals from causing harm to other individuals or to society.”a. Harm: an action causes harm if it directly undermines the rights of another person (or a group of people), related to one’s interested being frustrated or defeated.b. Any speech or conduct that willfully or negligently interferes with important interests or rights of other is harmful conduct. The state is entitled to pass laws against conduct that deliberately or negligently interferes with the rights of others, just so long as the rights-violation is sufficiently serious and the harm cannot effectively be prevented by other, less costly means (for example, throughpublic education or debate).c. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty: the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individual or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.i. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.ii. There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.d. Relevant issues: the nature of harm (physical + mental + economic, etc.) degrees of harme. Mill’s reason for protecting free speechi. Free speech both (1) promotes autonomy and (2) is reflection of individual autonomy and human equality.1. (1) Allowing a lot of free speech both promotes autonomy insofar as allowing people to say what they want will have the causal consequence that they will be able to say what they want.2. (2) Their ability to say what they want is what constitutes their autonomy.f. Pursuit of truth and knowledge and the importance of public discussioni. The pursuit of truth and knowledge are also valuable because they’re a means to happiness and in themselves. Free speech encourages the pursuit of truth and knowledge.g. Democratic, efficient, and just governmenti. The government should be somewhat representative of the people. Insofar as we can gain an idea of what the people think will give politicians the ability to represent them.h. Expressive Harm: harm that derives from the kind of attitude expressed (e.g. racist, sexist, etc.) in the very act of hate speech; it is independent of the causal effects of such a speech act.i. This is a way to incorporate things that may not obviously cause harm into the harm principle.III. The assumption that censoring pornography would reduce sexism and violence against women rests on three other assumptionsa. (1) That exposure to sexist, violent imagery leads to sexist, violent behaviori. This asserted causal connection cannot be proven. Even if we assumed that there is a causal connection, it would still not follow that censoring pornography would reduce sexism or violence, due to flaws in the remaining two assumptions.b. (2) That the effective suppression of pornography would significantly reduce exposure to sexist, violent imagery, andi. Even if pornography was completely suppressed, the sexist, violent imagery that pervades the mainstream media would remain untouched and we would not, therefore, solve the issue.ii. Attempts to suppress pornography will just drive it underground, not eradicate it.c. (3) That censorship would effectively suppress pornography.IV. Four types of evidence relied on by pro-censorship to prove the causal linka. Lab research showing the attitudinal effects of showing various types of sexually explicit materials to volunteer subjects, usually male college studentsi. Marcia Pally’s book draws from different lab studies and concludes that no credible evidence substantiates a clear causal connection between anytype of sexually explicit material and any sexist or violent behavior.ii. Experiments also failed to establish any link between women’s exposure to such materials and their development of negative self-images.b. Correlational data concerning availability of sexually oriented materials and anti-female discrimination or violencei. There simply are no consistent correlations. While the asserted correlation would not be sufficient to prove the claimed causal connection, it is necessary to prove that connection. Therefore, theexistence of the alleged causal relationship is conclusively refuted by the fact that levels of violence and discrimination against women are often inversely related to the availability of sexually explicit materials, including violent sexually explicit materials. c. Anecdotal data consisting of accounts by sex offenders and their victims


View Full Document

FSU PHI 2630 - Strossen

Documents in this Course
RSL

RSL

29 pages

Exam 1

Exam 1

5 pages

Test 1

Test 1

14 pages

Fallacies

Fallacies

13 pages

Test 1

Test 1

5 pages

Exam #2

Exam #2

8 pages

Liberty

Liberty

9 pages

Exam 2

Exam 2

7 pages

Load more
Download Strossen
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Strossen and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Strossen 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?