Free Speech Foundations (Vera Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: John
			John				Dee

As I indicated before, I'm skeptical about any of the standard forms of ethical theory. I think we need something new. For now, I suggest that we go back to some of the more specific and practical arguments that some of you made in favor of a liberal policy on free expression. We said there were four arguments commonly used to support such a policy. Here they are:

• It facilitates the search for truth
• It facilitates social progress in some broad sense
• It is needed for a well-functioning democracy
• It facilitates the growth of individuality

Think about these arguments and ask yourself how they apply to the case of hate speech. I don't think they pose a problem for a code like the one we have adopted. Consider each argument.

• Hate speech doesn't foster or facilitate the search for truth. What truth is discovered by calling someone a "nigger"?

• Hate speech doesn't promote social progress. On the contrary, it probably retards progress. Who would claim anything else?

• Hate speech isn't necessary for a well functioning democracy. Again, it probably works in just the opposite way. It poisons the political atmosphere and increases tension, distrust, and conflict.

• Hate speech doesn't foster the growth of individuality. Instead, it represses or decreases the individuality of the victim by treating him or her simply as a member of a group. In the case of women, pornographic speech and literature construct women as mere objects.

My point is that NONE of the traditional arguments can be used to support a policy on speech that is so liberal as to protect racist and sexist hate speech. Those arguments were developed with very different types of speech in mind - political speech, policy debates, scientific discussions, and so on. They fail completely to justify tolerance for hate speech.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home