Reply
Sat 21 Apr, 2007 04:47 pm
Hey guys. I was just wondering if anyone could give me any pointers on how to approach this. I need to make a 5 minute speech on Thursday and I don't even know where to start. Well, here's the topic:
"The issue of inusulting and abusive speech - especially slurs directed against people on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - is extremely controversial. Do you believe society should punish such speech with criminal penalties? To what degree are colleges and universities justfied in trying to discipline students who engage in such speech? Do you feel it is proper to place any boundaries on free expression in order to prohibit insulting and abusive speech? Why or why not?"
I've been trying to organize any kind of ideas but it's to no use. I don't want to use Imus as an example, because I'm sure almost all students in my class will use that. Could anyone please give me some pointers on how to start this?
I suggest you start with the unique function of speech and language in human cognitive processes and how all socialization and shared rationality/reality is conveyed by that medium. "Polititical correctness" is in effect an attempt to renegotiate "social reality" against a possible evolutionary tendency to prejudice and tribalism.
A couple of ideas.
Since the assignment mentions criminal penalties, why not look into criminal law or at least constitutional law, re such things. You might want to look up what at least used to be referred to in the law as "fighting words". Here's a link but keep in mind you should dig more deeply as this may only be showing one side of things.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718
Also, consider, what is it
you believe? Should people's feelings be protected? Or is that overreaching nanny state kind of stuff? Or should they just be told to tough it out? Or is that possibly lighting a fuse in people like Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter)?
fresco wrote:I suggest you start with the unique function of speech and language in human cognitive processes and how all socialization and shared rationality/reality is conveyed by that medium. "Polititical correctness" is in effect an attempt to renegotiate "social reality" against a possible evolutionary tendency to prejudice and tribalism.
Hahahaha. Ah,
fresco, sometimes you just crack me up.
Joe,
I'm happy to entertain even if I can't figure out the reason.
Well, fresco, the original poster asked for help on a five-minute speech regarding the banning of "hate speech." In response, you suggested something that would take hours to explain and that, in the end, had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the homework assignment. Surely that must have been a sly jest on your part. The joke, at least, was not lost on me.
Joe.
I would obviously argue for the relevence on the grounds that "language legislation" is merely one type formalization of the prevailing consenus of views within "society". In a democracy the relationship of between "academia" and "general society" tends to be one of leadership and since prejudice is inversely related to intelligence (i.e. runs counter to evolutionary traits exhibited by primates) one would expect such leadership to push for anti-prejudice laws.
Whether this thesis can can be presented in 5 minutes depends on the skill of the debater.
I was thinking you could simply look up information on hate crimes - that should give you lots of examples of how this hurts society/individuals and true real life criminal actions held against these.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace