Bad notion definition12/13/2023 ![]() Footnote 2 Concrete, measurable financial disadvantages can accrue as a result of intentional and inadvertent discrimination. Harm to physical and mental health occurs when stress levels are perpetually elevated by living in a constant state of hyper-vigilance. Moreover, the dominant may engage in expression that causes psychological harm through overt intimidation and/or targeted insults that function as verbal assaults. Thus, even if those belonging to historically stigmatized groups attempt to speak (which may require them to risk an important social alliance, a job, or even their personal safety), they may end up with no audience or with an audience that sharply discounts their testimony. The powerful are free to speak, and also free to silence the vulnerable by intimidating them, and by reinforcing inaccurate stereotypes that undermine their credibility. For them, absence of government speech regulation grants private parties with the most social capital expansive freedom to express themselves. But the civil rights side, advocated by Richard Delgado, Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Kimberlè Crenshaw and others, takes a different view. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech – not less – is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When we grant the government the power to suppress controversial ideas, we are all subject to censorship by the state. ![]() How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. The American Civil Liberties Union articulates the usual concern with speech policies: A California court struck down Stanford's policy on grounds that it violated students’ free speech rights. In 1994 Stanford University sought to prohibit on campus, as discriminatory harassment: “personal vilification of on the basis of their sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin.” Under this policy, speech would be regarded as personal vilification only if it met each of these criteria: (1) “is intended to insult or stigmatize an individual or small group of individuals on the basis of” one of the listed categories (2) “is addressed directly to the individual or individuals whom it insults or stigmatizes” and (3) “makes use of insulting or ‘fighting words’ or nonverbal symbols,” which “ ‘tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace,’ and which are commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of” the listed categories.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |