Drawing the line: limiting free speech or hate speech?
Ellie Swensson
Issue date: 11/6/07 Section: Up Hill, Down Hill
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The recent attention given to vandalism, harassment and ignorance has generated a loud cry in the Denison community for alterations in university policy.
Throughout the past week, questions raised by student organizations such as Outlook, the student gay, lesbian bisexual, transgender, questioning and ally group, and the Black Student Union (BSU) have been met with reportedly inconsistent responses from university administration.
This inconsistency only highlights the overall ambiguous nature of an institution, such as a university, handling hate speech.
"Hate speech has frequencies, I think," said Fred Porcheddu, associate professor of English.
Porcheddu said that he believes hate is a part of our everyday lives, but there are times at which an individual is obligated to protest.
"Hateful words coming from persons in positions of power over the listener…rise above the frequency of background stupidity and require our challenge," he said.
The subjective nature of hate speech, however, does not negate its threat to society as a whole. Hate speech is undoubtedly identified as the starting point for mass prejudices.
In fact, hate speech is classified as the first point on Allport's scale, a five step system which measures the growth of prejudice in a society from the first appearance up to the extermination of the discriminated group. It was created in 1954 by psychologist Gordon Allport.
What becomes difficult, however, is drawing the line between valid forms of personal speech and damaging hate speech. For example, an individual expressing their personal belief that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural could be viewed by some as an acceptable use of free speech while others could interpret the statements as homophobic hate speech.
Freshman Tia Christenson worries that policies created to target hate speech could have greater repercussions.
"It's a scary consequence when we end up limiting free speech when attempting to limit hate speech," she said.
Throughout the past week, questions raised by student organizations such as Outlook, the student gay, lesbian bisexual, transgender, questioning and ally group, and the Black Student Union (BSU) have been met with reportedly inconsistent responses from university administration.
This inconsistency only highlights the overall ambiguous nature of an institution, such as a university, handling hate speech.
"Hate speech has frequencies, I think," said Fred Porcheddu, associate professor of English.
Porcheddu said that he believes hate is a part of our everyday lives, but there are times at which an individual is obligated to protest.
"Hateful words coming from persons in positions of power over the listener…rise above the frequency of background stupidity and require our challenge," he said.
The subjective nature of hate speech, however, does not negate its threat to society as a whole. Hate speech is undoubtedly identified as the starting point for mass prejudices.
In fact, hate speech is classified as the first point on Allport's scale, a five step system which measures the growth of prejudice in a society from the first appearance up to the extermination of the discriminated group. It was created in 1954 by psychologist Gordon Allport.
What becomes difficult, however, is drawing the line between valid forms of personal speech and damaging hate speech. For example, an individual expressing their personal belief that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural could be viewed by some as an acceptable use of free speech while others could interpret the statements as homophobic hate speech.
Freshman Tia Christenson worries that policies created to target hate speech could have greater repercussions.
"It's a scary consequence when we end up limiting free speech when attempting to limit hate speech," she said.
Be the first to comment on this story