Speech That Harms (Fred Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: Vera
					Vera

That's a really interesting question. Why should we protect speech even when it does harm? It's pretty clear that there are times when speech itself is a constituent part of an act that is wrong. For example, for a crime boss to order someone killed is wrong. No one would argue that the order is justified because speech is involved. No one would argue that the victim has no right to demand that the boss be stopped or punished simply because speech is being used.

Things become more difficult when speech is not a constituent part of a wrong act, but rather is indirectly (and probably not very tightly) connected with such an act. Let's assume that a history professor gives a lecture on the horrors of Sherman's march through Georgia. One of her students is so upset by the lecture that he decides to kill one of Sherman's great great grandchildren. Does the Sherman family have claims against the professor? Is the professor obliged not to give such lectures?

It seems to me that except for a few cases, we have to accept harm that results from speech. Otherwise, we would be required to restrict speech a good deal.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home