“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Does this mean you or I have the right to hurl ethnic or gender slurs? Do we have a right to publish satirical images of religious figures? Do either of us have a right to advocate for a law permitting business owners to hire people on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs?
Scholars and legal pundits disagree over the answers to such questions because they disagree about the purpose of the First Amendment, which informs the scope of protected expression—does it protect all speech or just explicitly political, religious, and philosophical speech?
But, more importantly, hate speech may involve more than an expression of offensive and hostile viewpoints. Much hate speech is also discriminatory, demeaning, and subordinating. In short, such speech oppresses its targets.
After discussing three widespread theories about the purpose of free speech—as a marketplace of ideas, as facilitating democratic self-government, and as essential for developing individual autonomy—Professor Ramsey will explore how some hate speech oppresses its targets and argue that, according to each of these theories, oppressive speech does not merit First Amendment protection.
If you wish to purchase a lunch or pick up a lunch, the Malott Commons Dining Hall opens at 11:15am. Doors open to the Hampton Room at 11:45am.