Summing Up (Ann Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: Event
			John

I want to try to summarize what we have been saying before we break up. In general, it looks this way:

• Dee and John think that the court decided the case against the university properly. They agree that the speech code restricted some speech protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, they also agree that a much narrower code, one that restricted only speech used to harass specific individuals, might be constitutional.
  

• I believe that the judge failed to consider the special circumstances of a university. I also believe that there are precedents that would allow a university to restrict speech that hinders the educational process and prevents the university from providing equal access to all students.
  

• Malik and Vera also disagree with the judge. Malik has argued for a "contextual" approach that places much greater weight on the harm done by racist speech. He believes that the harm goes way beyond interfering with the educational process.
  

• Malik and Vera also believe that this decision calls into question the whole political philosophy of liberalism and the value of liberal society. We tried to define liberalism. Malik believes that the fundamental moral principles that undergird our social institutions should be revisited in a new debate that includes the people who were excluded in the past. He doesn't think that the current understanding of liberalism would win out in that debate.
  

• Vera has stressed the need for equality rights to balance liberty rights. She believes that this would provide a principled basis for a new balance on both the legal and the moral levels. She approves some of the legal changes that have been made in Canada. Equality rights could provide a way to restrict some of the most harmful cases of hate speech.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home