A content-neutral code! You're preaching the liberal dream, John.
Liberal social philosophers would like to create a society in
which the state only regulates the form of behavior but never
the content. This is especially true of ideas. Regulate the time,
place, and manner, but never the content of what anyone says or
believes.
The problem is that we inherit hundreds of years of racist ideas,
attitudes, and institutions. These things are so thoroughly
ingrained that the liberal approach simply leaves them untouched
or only slightly weakened. The harm done by racism and sexism
is so enormous and the resistance to change is so great that regulations
on content are justified. Without them, we run the risk of continuing for centuries as a society characterized by racist and sexist hierarchies.
Reference: The notion that government must never restrict
expression on the basis of content or viewpoint is currently part
of the dominant interpretation of the First Amendment. Some scholars
take the position that this rule improperly ignores what we know
about the harm caused by certain kinds of content. Catherine MacKinnon,
for example, has praised the Canadian Supreme Court for upholding
content-based restrictions. In her view, the court was correct
because of the "antiegalitarian meaning and devastating consequences"
of hate propaganda. See MacKinnon, Only Words, p. 100.
Speaking)