Summing Up (Malik Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: Event

I'm going to try to sum this up. Our main question in this meeting has been whether the speech code at the university is constitutional. We also asked whether a law against hate speech would be constitutional. It seems to me that we have taken the following positions:

• Ann believes that the university speech code is constitutional. Instead of relying on the traditional exceptions like "fighting words" she relies on arguments that are specific to the university. For example, since hate speech can seriously interfere with the educational goals of the university, it can be constitutionally restricted just like disruptive speech in a courtroom. She doesn't believe that a law against hate speech would be constitutional because society does not have a goal analogous to that of the university and because such a law would be content based and viewpoint based.

• Dee takes the ACLU position. She believes that only a very narrow range of hate speech can be constitutionally restricted. She is thinking of speech that harasses, intimidates, or invades the privacy of specific individuals. The code we have is unconstitutional because it is content based, too broad, and too vague. She would argue that a law against hate speech would be unconstitutional on the same grounds. She also thinks that the argument over speech codes distracts us from more important issues that affect the lives of ordinary African Americans and women.

• I believe that the code is constitutional for several reasons. I accept Ann's argument; but would also stress the harm done to the immediate victims and to larger groups, including all African Americans on campus. I argued that hate speech can be placed on the lower tier of speech along with obscenity and commercial speech, where it would not receive the same protection as top tier speech like political ideas. Because it is on the lower tier, it would be constitutional to restrict it to some degree because of the harm it does. These arguments could be used to argue the constitutionality of both a speech code and a law restricting hate speech.

• Vera believes that we should interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that guarantees a set of substantive equality rights. When the guarantees of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth conflict, it would be necessary and constitutional to balance the two. This would mean restricting protections on speech slightly in order to protect equality.

• Fred is against both the code and any law against hate speech. For him these measures are unconstitutional because they are content based, viewpoint based, and vague. But he also stresses the dangers of a slippery slope and the possibility that such measures can backfire on those who support them. He warns that the consequences of such restrictions may go way beyond what is intended and are impossible to predict.

• John agrees with Dee that a narrow code and equally narrow law might be constitutional if directed clearly at speech that harasses and intimidates. He adds that this doesn't mean that a code or law would be good policy - only that it would be constitutional. He also believes that many arguments for such codes and laws are based on bad sociology. Because of this mistaken sociology, some of the proponents believe that banning hate speech would have a major impact on substantive social inequalities. John does not believe that it would have such an impact.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home