Chapter 16 Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Montgomery College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
140
Subject
Communications
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by MateWildcat2938
1.
What is hate speech? What are speech codes? What is the central conflict in
campus free speech controversies? (p. 590)
Hate speech refers to any form of communication, in speech, writing, or
behavior, that offends, threatens, or insults individuals or groups based on attributes
such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other
characteristics (Vaughn, 2019, p.601). An important note is that the definition of hate
speech can vary across different legal and cultural contexts.
Speech codes typically refer to rules or regulations that govern the content of
speech, often within a specific organization, institution, or community (Vaughn, 2019,
p.601). These codes can take various forms and may be implemented by governments,
educational institutions, workplaces, or online platforms. The purpose of speech codes
is often to establish guidelines for acceptable speech and behavior, with the intention
of promoting a safe and inclusive environment.
The central conflict in campus free speech controversies often revolves around
finding a balance between the principles of free speech and the need to maintain a safe,
inclusive, and respectful environment for all members of the campus community. This
conflict can manifest in various ways and involves multiple considerations (Vaughn,
2019, p.600). Educational institutions value academic freedom, allowing for the open
exchange of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge. However, this can clash with efforts
to create inclusive spaces that protect individuals from offensive or harmful speech,
particularly when it comes to issues such as race, gender, sexuality, or religion.
2.
What are the reasons free speech advocates give for not censoring offensive
speech? (p. 591)
Free speech advocates put forth several arguments for not censoring offensive
speech. These arguments are rooted in the principles of free expression, democratic
values, and the belief that open discourse is essential for the pursuit of knowledge and
the functioning of a healthy society (Vaughn, 2019, p.603
)
. Supporters of free speech
argue that having the ability to express oneself is a basic human right. They think
people need to be free to express their thoughts, feelings, and convictions without
worrying about institutional or governmental restrictions.
Defenders of free speech
frequently voice their worries about censorship's tendency to get worse. They contend
that it is difficult to know when to draw the line when some forms of speech are
restricted. There's a concern that good intentions limitations could eventually grow
more expansive, stifling more forms of expression.
3.
Does the First Amendment protect hate speech? Why is the right of free speech
not absolute? (pp. 590–592)
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to free
speech, but it's crucial to understand that this guarantee is not absolute. The First
Amendment protects the freedom to voice a broad range of opinions, even ones that
are disagreeable or unpopular, but it also places restrictions on some forms of
expression, such as hate speech (Vaughn, 2019, p.603). The Supreme Court of the
United States has recognized that some categories of speech are not protected by the
First Amendment. These include speech that incites violence, obscenity, defamation,
and certain types of "fighting words" that can provoke immediate harm or violence.
Hate speech, when it rises to the level of inciting imminent harm or poses a direct
threat, may fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.
The right to free speech is not absolute for several reasons, and these
limitations are generally acknowledged in legal systems that protect freedom of
expression. Speech that is immediately dangerous to the public's safety is not
protected. Speech that, for instance, calls for violence, stirs up disturbances in the
community or poses an immediate threat to safety may be prohibited (Vaughn, 2019,
p.604). Additionally, false claims that damage to other people's reputations might not
be protected. If someone is the subject of false or harmful statements, they have the
legal right to take legal action under defamation laws.
4.
According to John Arthur, what are three important benefits of having the right
to speak and write freely? (p. 591)
John Arthur free speech is often seen as essential for the pursuit of truth. The
exchange of ideas and open dialogue allows for the testing of various perspectives and
the discovery of new insights. In a society where people are free to express their
thoughts and challenge prevailing beliefs, there is a greater potential for the
advancement of knowledge (Vaughn, 2019, p.602).
The idea of personal autonomy is
connected to the right to free expression. Encouraging people to openly express their
identities, opinions, and thoughts promotes self-expression and human autonomy. This
is crucial for the range and depth of intellectual and cultural life in society, as well as
for personal fulfillment.
5.
What are four kinds of speech that the First Amendment does not protect? What
has been the courts’ prevailing attitude toward speech codes at colleges and
universities? (p. 592)
Speech that directly and immediately incites or produces lawless action is not
protected. This includes speech that is likely to incite or produce imminent harm or
illegal activity. Also, the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, which is
often defined as material that appeals to prurient interests, lacks serious artistic, literary,
scientific, or political value, and violates community standards (Vaughn, 2019, p.604)
.
Additionally, false statements that harm the reputation of an individual or entity are not
protected by the First Amendment. Defamation includes both spoken (slander) and
written (libel) false statements that can damage a person's character or reputation. Lastly,
speech that constitutes a true threat is not protected. A true threat is a statement where the
speaker communicates a serious intention to commit an act of unlawful violence against a
particular individual or group. The threat must be credible and directed at a specific
target.
The courts' attitudes toward speech codes at colleges and universities in the
United States have evolved over time, and the legal landscape is complex. The
prevailing attitude varies depending on the specific content and application of the
speech codes, as well as the legal challenges brought before the courts (Vaughn, 2019,
p.605). Courts have generally emphasized the importance of protecting robust free
speech rights on college and university campuses. They have recognized that the
university setting is a unique environment where the free exchange of ideas is critical
to academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.
6.
How can hate speech harm a member of a minority group? (p. 594) Is this harm
sufficient to justify speech codes on campus in your opinion? Why or why not?
Those who are the targets of hate speech can suffer severe psychological
effects. It could make you feel stressed, afraid, or anxious. The ongoing exposure of
members of the targeted minority group to slurs or discriminatory remarks can create a
hostile environment that negatively impacts their mental health. It may result in mental
distress, which could make you feel depressed, angry, or powerless (Vaughn, 2019,
p.606). It may weaken a person's sense of value and community, creating a harmful
environment that restricts personal development.
Regular exposure to hate speech has
the potential to normalize prejudiced beliefs. As discriminatory language spreads, it
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
may desensitize people to the harm that these statements create, strengthening
prejudices and discriminatory ideas.
Yes, speech codes are necessary to prevent harm, particularly the psychological
and emotional harm inflicted by hate speech on individuals and communities. The
codes are seen as a way to create a safer and more inclusive environment. Educational
institutions have a responsibility to create an environment conducive to learning and
personal development. Speech codes may align with the educational mission of
fostering critical thinking, open dialogue, and respect for diverse perspectives. These
speech codes send a message that discriminatory and hurtful language will not be
tolerated, contributing to a more welcoming educational environment.
7.
What argument could a nonconsequentialist make for free speech? (pp. 594–596) Nonconsequentialist ethical frameworks, such as deontology, emphasize the
inherent moral principles or duties that guide actions, regardless of the consequences.
A nonconsequentialist may argue that individuals have an inherent and fundamental
right to express themselves (Vaughn, 2019, p.609). This right is derived from the value
of autonomy and the belief that individuals possess intrinsic worth. In this view, free
speech is not merely a means to some other end but a foundational aspect of respecting
individuals as moral agents. Free speech is seen as a crucial means for individuals to
share ideas, engage in intellectual inquiry, and collectively seek understanding.
Restricting speech might be seen as a violation of the duty to pursue truth, hindering
the process of critical thinking and intellectual growth.
8.
Do you believe that shouting down a controversial speaker so he or she can’t be
heard is morally permissible? Why or why not? If your silencing a controversial
speaker is morally permissible, would it be morally permissible for others to
shout down a speaker you like but they disdain?
I believe it is ok because shouting down a controversial speaker is a form of protest and free expression. It can be seen as a way for individuals to voice their dissent and opposition to ideas they find offensive or harmful. I also see no reason to object as it does not directly harm the individual, they are both exercising their freedom of speech.
Of course, it is okay for someone to shout down a speaker that they do not agree with, regardless of if I agree with them.
If I believe that shouting down a controversial speaker is morally permissible in certain situations, they should logically apply the same standard to speakers they support. Consistency in moral reasoning often demands that ethical principles be applied uniformly, regardless of personal preferences or affiliations. 9.
Is free speech (including the right to use hate speech) necessary for the search for
knowledge? Explain. How could speech codes be used not to ban hate speech but
to censor political views that are unpopular or unwelcome?
I understand both sides, but I am going to say no, the need to use hate speech is
not necessary for the search of knowledge. The presence of hate speech or other forms
of offensive expression can create a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from
participating in discussions or expressing unpopular opinions. This might hinder the
free exchange of ideas and impede the search for knowledge by limiting the diversity
of perspectives. Hate speech can create an environment of hostility and harassment,
negatively impacting the well-being of individuals. In such an atmosphere, individuals
may be more focused on self-protection than on open and constructive dialogue,
potentially hindering the search for knowledge.
Speech regulations that specifically state that political opinions are protected
may yet be selectively enforced to single out ideologies. Should the individuals
responsible for implementing the standards possess prejudices or inclinations, they
may opt to analyze and penalize specific political utterances while disregarding others.
It is crucial to make sure that speech codes are properly written with precise language,
that enforcement is just and unbiased, and that there are procedures for accountability
and due process in place to prevent the abuse of these laws for political suppression.
For universities and any other institution that uses speech codes to preserve a positive
and welcoming intellectual climate, open communication, transparency, and a
commitment to respecting the ideals of free expression are essential.
10. What criticisms have been lodged against the concept of microaggression? Do you
agree with them? Why or why not?
Some criticism against the concept of microaggressions is that it is subjective and
can be ambiguous. Determining what constitutes a microaggression often relies on
individuals' perceptions, making it challenging to establish clear and universally agreed-
upon criteria. This subjectivity can lead to misunderstandings and debates over what is
genuinely offensive.
The focus on the impact of statements or actions rather than the
intent behind them can lead to an environment where individuals are held accountable for
unintentional offenses. Some argue that intent should be considered when evaluating
whether an action or statement is genuinely harmful. Concerns have been raised that the
concept of microaggressions, if not carefully applied, may contribute to a chilling effect
on free speech. Some worry that individuals may become hesitant to express their
opinions or engage in open dialogue for fear of inadvertently committing
microaggression.
I do not how I feel about microaggression because I understand both sides and
have witnessed both sides as well. The concept of microaggressions raises awareness
about subtle forms of discrimination and helps individuals become more sensitive to the
impact of their words and actions on others. On one hand microaggression is often
manifestations of power imbalances and systemic inequalities. Recognizing and
addressing these subtle forms of bias is seen as crucial for challenging and dismantling
larger structures of oppression. However, it can also be said that focusing solely on the
impact of statements or actions, without considering intent, may lead to a culture of over-
sensitivity where individuals are held accountable for unintentional offenses. But it can
also be said that understanding and addressing microaggressions can serve as an
educational tool, promoting conversations about diversity, equity, and inclusion. It
encourages individuals to reflect on their behavior and fosters a culture of continuous
learning. That being said the biggest argument against microaggressions is that an overly
broad application of the concept of microaggressions may contribute to a chilling effect
on free speech. Individuals may become hesitant to express opinions for fear of being
accused of microaggressions. I understand both sides so I can not say I agree with one
over the other currently.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help