Rights and Hate Speech (Dee Speaking)
		Comment				MAIN PATH: Malik
				Fred		Malik	Dee

I disagree. Your argument illustrates the kind of difficulty that utilitarianism leads to over and over again. You may very well be right that by "refining" our policy on free expression we can increase human welfare in the long term. I'll give you that. The problem is that your argument can be used to restrict free expression in any case in which we can show that it reduces human welfare, even by a very small amount. If, for example, we discovered that criticizing the war in Vietnam reduced welfare, the university could ban it.

All of this points to the need for a theory of individual rights that places limits on what can be justified by mere utility. Some things should be allowed even if they detract from overall welfare in the long term. Those are the things we have a right to do. Your view completely eliminates rights of this sort.

On my view, a proper theory of individual rights would justify a very liberal policy on free expression both at the university and in society at large. Individual speech can be restricted only if it violates the rights of someone else. This code certainly isn't limited to cases in which rights are violated. That's why I oppose it.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home