I have spent much of my life in the centre of one controversy or another, and so this discussion of speech codes is one with which I have direct experience. In my own view, the line between aceptable speech and unacceptable speech is the one dividing the use of speech to express a belief and the use of speech to commit an act, where speech codes would apply to instances of the latter where the speech is being used to harass, threaten, embarass, intimidate or in some other way act in coercive or threatening behaviour. Author Donald Alexander Downs, interviewed for this article, suggests that the problem with speech codes is "the common policy connections with the ideas embedded in speech codes," which he interprets as "left, liberal policies." This is in my view a misrepresentation of the current state of speech codes. Try, for example, denouncing patriotism, picketing a church during Sunday service, or criticizing the company or university you work for, to name but three examples. The policy principles embedded in much longer-established speech codes, those that promote what might be called a right-wing agenda, go well beyond the intent of preventing harmful acts. Drawing the line as I suggest above would give people like me much more latitude of speech, while nonetheless limiting the attacks against identifiable minorities that characterize the targets of 'politically correct' speech codes.
Today: 0 Total: 14 [Direct link] [Share]
