What's the Principle?
(John Speaking)

 
 
Return To Main Path
 
 
 
 
 
 

I agree that any acceptable code should be narrow and that there is a danger that any code may chill discussion even in areas where it doesn't formally apply. But I also have a different concern that I want to bring out. One of the problems with the code we have now is that it isn't clear what moral principle lies behind it.

The oldest principle of justice in western philosophy is that equal cases should be treated equally. We can't tell whether that principle is being adhered to unless we know the principle underlying the current speech code. It isn't clear why some kinds of speech are included and others are not. Right now, I could reduce someone to tears by making fun of them because they are fat and the code would not apply. On the other hand, if I called you a "wop" I could be punished. Why? Is there a difference? It may well be that essentially equal cases are being treated very differently. On the other hand, perhaps there is an important difference between these cases and the code is justified in treating them differently. We don't know because we don't know what principle underlies the code.

The principle behind the code should be stated clearly and ALL behavior that it applies to should be prohibited. Otherwise, the code is arbitrary and, for that reason alone, unjust.

Ariadne Home Hate Speech
Bibliography		 Hate Speech
Home