Speech code: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In the [[United States of America|United States]], the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has not issued a direct ruling on whether speech codes at [[public university|public universities]] are unconstitutional. However, a federal [[United States District Court|district court]] ruling which struck down a speech code at the [[University of Michigan]] indicates that broad speech codes seeking to prohibit hate speech probably violate the [[First Amendment]] (''Doe v. [[University of Michigan]],'' [[1989]]). Subsequent challenges against speech codes couched in harassment policies, [[diversity]] mandates, and so forth instead of being self-identified as speech codes have generally succeeded to date. |
In the [[United States of America|United States]], the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has not issued a direct ruling on whether speech codes at [[public university|public universities]] are unconstitutional. However, a federal [[United States District Court|district court]] ruling which struck down a speech code at the [[University of Michigan]] indicates that broad speech codes seeking to prohibit hate speech probably violate the [[First Amendment]] (''Doe v. [[University of Michigan]],'' [[1989]]). Subsequent challenges against speech codes couched in harassment policies, [[diversity]] mandates, and so forth instead of being self-identified as speech codes have generally succeeded to date. |
||
It should be noted that Matthew Duffie is a huge fan of Speech Code. To such a point that he considers it a way of life... |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
Revision as of 18:09, 2 June 2006
A speech code is any rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel, and fighting words. Such codes are common in the workplace, in universities, and in private organizations. The term may be applied to regulations that do not explicitly prohibit particular words or sentences. Speech codes are often applied for the purpose of suppressing hate speech.
Use of the term is in many cases valuative; those opposing a particular regulation may refer to it as a speech code, while supporters will prefer to describe it as, for example and depending on the circumstances, a harassment policy. This is particularly the case in academic contexts. The difference may be ascertained by determining if the harassment policy bans more than what is legally defined as harassment; one that does is almost certainly a speech code.
In the United States, the Supreme Court has not issued a direct ruling on whether speech codes at public universities are unconstitutional. However, a federal district court ruling which struck down a speech code at the University of Michigan indicates that broad speech codes seeking to prohibit hate speech probably violate the First Amendment (Doe v. University of Michigan, 1989). Subsequent challenges against speech codes couched in harassment policies, diversity mandates, and so forth instead of being self-identified as speech codes have generally succeeded to date.