About Doe
(Dee Speaking)

 
 
Return To Main Path
 
 
 
 
 
 

I don't think your argument refutes the judge's position. He came to the conclusion that the code we have prohibits some speech that is clearly protected by the First Amendment. Even if we assume that some speech can be constitutionally restricted when it interferes with the educational goals of the university, this would still be true and the code would still be constitutionally flawed.

The student who remarked that he heard that black students were discriminated against in a certain class, or the student who said that he thought homosexuality was a disease, were not disrupting the educational process. These cases would still be a problem, and therefore the code wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

The university never suggested that it saw a First Amendment issue in these cases. That is what concerned the judge.

Ariadne Home Hate Speech
Bibliography		 Hate Speech
Home