The Speech Code
(John Speaking)

 
 

MAIN PATH: Fred
 
 
Fred
 
 
 

Vera is pointing to a real problem. The four traditional arguments don't seem to work in the case of hate speech, but I want to propose an extension of the traditional arguments that may strengthen them and help us to apply them to hate speech.

The speech that the traditional arguments were designed to protect can be thought of as a core of highly valuable speech. Outside the core there are many kinds of speech that are of little value in themselves. One of these is hate speech, which I would agree is a bad thing taken by itself. But it shouldn't be taken by itself. It should be taken in relation to the entire field of speech; and that's how we can begin to see why it should be protected.

The core speech is the speech that advances knowledge and helps democracy to function. The periphery is less valuable by itself. But here's the point: We have to protect the less valuable speech (or the negatively valued speech like hate speech) in order to be sure that the core remains well protected.

I also suggest that we look at the code that the university has adopted and ask ourselves what can be said for and against it. There are a lot of pros and cons that have been discussed by the faculty and in the Daily.
Reference: For a discussion of several arguments that attempt to justify a liberal policy on free expression, see Lee Bollinger The Tolerant Society. Bollinger discusses what he calls the classical model and the fortress model for defending speech. John's view is a version of the fortress model.
Ariadne Home Hate Speech
Bibliography		 Hate Speech
Home