PHI 2630 1st Edition Lecture 6 Outline of Last Lecture II Stanford s Regulation of Speech III Why the Regulation is In Line with the First Amendment IV Why Face to Face Insults are not Worthy of First Amendment Protection a Immediacy of Injury b Purpose of the First Amendment V Factors that Indicate the Non Speech Provoking Character of the Attacks a Visceral Emotional Response b Pre Emptive Nature c Societal Position of Victims d Double Standard Outline of Current Lecture VI John Arthur Sticks and Stones a Dangers of Censorship b Does hate speech cause harm VII Charles Lawrence VIII Feinberg s Offense Principle IX Free Speech and Pornography X Principle of Legal Moralism Current Lecture Freedom of Speech Expression Ethical Issues II John Arthur Sticks and Stones a Dangers of censorship i Hate speech bans risk sweeping too broadly deeming valuable speech as undesirable ii Chilling effect iii Unpopular minorities and controversial ideas are vulnerable to political repression b Does hate speech cause harm i Is censorship justified on anti discrimination grounds ii Individual vs cumulative harm 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 iii Some possible effects of hate speech i distress ii reduced self esteem iii increased risk of violence and discrimination iv Difference between wrong doing and harm v Epithets acts of subordination Altmann III Charles R Lawrence III a Hate speech used in face to face insults falls within the fighting words category i immediacy of the injurious impact ii racist speech as a preemptive strike reinforcing and perpetuating racist etc views b Psychic injury is no less an injury than being struck in the face and it often is in fact more severe Racial epithets and harassment often cause deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear that pervade every aspect of a victim s life IV Feinberg s Offense Principle a The principle asserts in effect that the prevention of offensive conduct is properly the state s business b Individual s liberty can be interfered with in order to prohibit individuals from offending others causing them shame discomfort embarrassment c Hate Speech Language oral or written that expresses strong hatred contempt or intolerance for some social group particularly social groups classified according to race ethnicity gender sexual orientation religion disability or nationality 749 i Speech codes policy and guide ii Clash freedom vs equality iii Case study Doe vs University of Michigan 1989 iv The policy prohibited 1 Any behavior verbal or physical that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race ethnicity religion sex sexual orientation creed that creates an intimidating hostile or demeaning environment for educational pursuits employment or participation in University sponsored extra curricular activities v The guide provided examples of undesirable conduct including 1 You exclude someone from a study group because that person is of a different race sex or ethnic origin than you are 2 You display a confederate flag on the door of your room in your residence hall 3 You comment in a derogatory way about a particular person or group s physical appearance or sexual orientation or their cultural origins or religious beliefs V Free Speech and Pornography a Kantian considerations treating women solely as means infringing women s equality rights VI Principle of Legal Moralism a A government may justifiably pass laws that interfere with individual liberty in order to protect common moral standards independently of whether the activities in question are harmful to others or to oneself 136 b Principle of legal moralism vs right to privacy freedom of expression etc c Possible harm i actresses ii women in general d What constitutes consent free choice e Pornography and equality women s ability to participate as equal citizens in public and private spheres
View Full Document
Unlocking...