Suchergebnisse

How identity politics and institutional cowardice have undermined the free speech on which our society relies.

The "politically correct" speech codes on US university campuses to punish language offensive to minorities are examined from the perspective of the rights guaranteed under the First & Fourteenth Amendments & their effects on minority & nonminority students. It appears that liberal & politically moderate students are more intimidated by the codes than conservative students, & there are differences in perceptions by minority groups of what is politically correct for their particular group. It is concluded that speech codes will continue to limit expression on campuses, to the detriment of students who are protected from the situations of the real world. M. Malas

Campus speech codes began to spring up on university campuses during the 1980s and continue to operate today. The codes regulate various forms of arguably offensive speech, including speech regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, views, and political affiliation. Numerous litigants have challenged the chilling effect these policies have on student and faculty speech, but in cases where the challenged code has not yet been enforced, some courts find that the plaintiff has not met the "injury-in-fact" requirement for Article III standing. The Supreme Court has not ruled on standing requirements in speech code challenges and lower courts are divided. This Comment analyzes this division and proposes that the injury-in-fact requirement should be satisfied by a plaintiff's statement describing the intended speech and how it is chilled by the challenged speech code.

In this article, we propose a six-step iterative training cycle for intercultural trainers and trainees to understand the cultural codes underlying conflict in intercultural communication. We offer this training cycle, grounded in speech codes theory and ethnographic research methods, as a complementary alternative to traditional prescriptive cultural values approaches. Speech codes theory is a descriptive theory that conceptualizes culture as a system of norms, premises, and symbols about communication that is shared by members of a given speech community. Further, we argue that a corollary of understanding speech codes through our six-step iterative training cycle is the development of emic intercultural communication competence and sensitivity.

In this essay, I will focus on one feature of the policy debate concerning the legal regulation of racial hate speech: the absence of a discussion of the discursive force that is realized through the classifying acts of the state. Neither the First Amendment "absolutists" nor the "revisionists" offer an adequate account of the conditions that are constitutive of what I will call the force of state speech. My critical remarks focus primarily on revisionist arguments made by critical race theorists, who propose a new tort for racial hate speech. I will use this critical engagement as the springboard for conceptualizing the social risk of state speech, defined as the undemocratic imposition of racial categories on socially disadvantaged individuals. This risk is significant because the racial categories imposed by the state establish the context for the public expression of racial hate speech. After presenting potential remedies to attenuate this risk that emphasizes deliberative choice rather than the proscription of words & images, I illustrate the relation of state speech, race, & communicative inequality via reconstruction of the legal features of the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.. Adapted from the source document.