Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Hate Speech? I Hate Hate Speech. Maybe Hate is too strong of a word. I Hate Dislike-Speech. I Dislike Dislike-speech?

It has been said that one persons freedom ends where anothers begins. This is a statement which is quite relevant in todays world of (perhaps overly) prevalent political correctitude. If news stories are indicative of anything, people in power must be careful with what they say (lest they be sued), and people not in power must be careful with what they say (lest they be assaulted). One might say that those having a history of being abused are now in a position to return the abuse. Of the essays I had read in preparation for writing about this topic, I believed one in particular to be quite illuminating. In the essay The Betrayal of Liberty on Americas Campuses, Alan Charles Kors makes the point that universities are standing in loco parentis (and if I know my Spanish, this means inside crazy parents. I am not sure what he is trying to get at here, but my inside source says that Kors means in the place of parents, so this must be a colloquialism): he makes the point that colleges are free to make arbitrary policies restricting (almost reasonably) the language students can use, as well as (not-so-almost-reasonably) the ways students can react to language spoken. An example of the former: Rutgers University included within the forbidden any heinous act of harassment, communication that is in any manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm. An example of the latter: A student at Sarah Lawrence College recently was convicted of laughing at something that someone else said, and was ordered as a condition of remaining in the college, for his laughter, to read a book entitled Homophobia on Campus, see a movie about homophobia, and write a paper about homophobia. Additionally, Kors makes points about A Central Michigan University case where the Supreme Court deemed that the university had not the power to enforce the 1st and 14th Amendments The policy of universities in general to encourage these charges to be brought The tendency of universities to enforce the belief that, if [students] belong to a protected category and have the correct beliefs, they have a right to four years of never being offended That the goal of a speech code is to suppress speech one doesnt like The seeming fact that non minorities are virtually able to be discriminated against freely Assimilationists being called Uncle Tom and Oreo without retribution

My stance is that one does not need to use so-called offensive language to get a point across, unless one is quoting someone, or if one is discussing a topic related to speech restrictions. In general I would like to advocate more freedom until some offense is given/made, but I realize that there will often be someone who will take advantage of such freedom in unscrupulous ways. So in this case, I would proscribe some minor restrictions, and hope its enough. To be more thorough, I suppose I would have this sort of thing arbitrated by a small council of representatives from several race and age groups, with perhaps a slightly stronger vote by those affected in particular by an issue. I would have three levels of restriction: those who attend a university should be bound by simple rules of propriety, those who name their university in something they say should have an increased liability, and those who represent a university by merit of being employed (or some rough equivalent of authority) should again have a bit of a harsher sanction. Due to the arbitrary nature of the thing, theres not much to say in regards to where to draw the line; one could put it into the terms of 1) Students can be ignorant, but not hostile. You can preach ignorance, but dont force it upon others. 2) Dont mention the school. 3) Dont teach ignorance. I cant really think of a reason to support proliferation of hate speech, especially on a campus level. I feel that one can do enough off-campus, and can find enough people of similar mindset on a campus, such that one does not have to seek an outlet in the harassment of students. In Tina Dupuys Freedom of Deplorable Speech , she uses the Westboro Baptist Church to make at least three points: that Popular speech doesnt need protection. Nor does popular religious belief. And that the Churchs protests are a sign of our freedom. I guess the question that I would like to ask is this: How much freedom do we need, exactly? This is something for you to think about, but I suppose I can offer some of my own perspective. I wonder whether there is any use for what seems like excessive freedoms at the cost of the well-being (emotional or otherwise) of others. In the movie The Dark Knight, Batman obtains a sort of security camera system that makes use of cell phones to show what anyone close enough to a cell phone is doing. He uses this system to find the Joker (with the aid of an assistant who resigns at the very idea of the technology existing) and subsequently it is destroyed. What I never quite understood is this: why does anyone care if Batman has this? He only goes after particularly violent criminals, (and in this case is going after a seemingly otherwise unstoppable maniac) so why would any decent person care if he uses this thing? From talking to people, I suppose that I am the odd one out, thinking I would not mind being watched when I am

not doing anything bad. Anything else, even weird things I may do, just seems trivial, boring, and why does it matter if a stranger sees it? So then it would seem that for the most part, restrictions are fine as long as they only impede on obvious wrongdoings. However, this is an idyllic scenario, and the reality would be something like one where cameras are everywhere and no one can: recklessly endanger the lives of others because they are late to work, steal, or do drugs in half as many places as they could before the cameras. And who wants to live in a world like that? (half sarcasm. Sometimes doing illegal stuff is awesome)