| sapphi_snake said: I thought that the cases from the link you provided were the only ones. Regarding your second paragraph, hate speech is defined denigrating speech that may incite violence or prejudice against a minority group (or a group that is not dominant within society, and is thus a possible victim of persecution). In most civlized countries such hate speech is illegal, and since universities do recieve public funding, it's actually quite appropriate that they respect the law. Now the problem is that many people extend the definition of hate speech way too much, thus making the whole concept and the laws regarding it (which are terribly necessary) seem like a joke (a lot of the cases presented on that site are good examples). "Offensive" is really an understatement when referring to hate speech. An example of hate speech would be "black people are evil and primitive. If they get near you they'll rob and rape you. Beware of them!" or "gay people are an abomination. they should be stoned to death". If I were black/gay/both, I'd not really have much time to be offended, because I'd be too busy fearing for my life, 'cause they're essentially instignations to persecution and violence towards me, especially in a country like mine, where lynch mobs aren't unheard of. Instignations towards violence are generally illegal in most countries, regardless of whom they're aimed at. |
I sense that we may be talking past one another. I'm not talking about "hate speech", which doesn't exist as a legal concept in the US, but rather the practice of universities arbitrarily deciding that what this student said or did is offensive while what another student said or did is not. When the speech in question doesn't come close to crossing any legal lines - into libel, obscenity (which I think is a bullshit concept on par with hate speech, but that's a whole different argument in itself), or fighting words - it amounts to nothing more than someone who is in a position of power having had their own personal sensibilities offended and using their power to shut down people with whom they disagree. That's just unacceptable for a public institution, and when universities pride themselves on being places where ideas can be freely exchanged, it is also monumentally hypocritical.
