[354] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: urgent [was: re: Nu Delta]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Mon Apr 30 18:51:21 2001
To: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Jimmy_B,MajMoola,MechWarrior,etc._Chien-ta Wu" <jimmbswu@MIT.EDU>,
mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: Aimee L Smith's message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:08:07 -0400"
Date: 30 Apr 2001 18:51:09 -0400
Message-ID: <ppwlmoingrm.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU> writes:
> QUESTION: was it free speech for the hecklers at ATO
> to yell racist and sexist remarks to members of The Roots?
Yes.
> If so, why are you "defenders of the status quo" not backing
> their right to free speech, those poor young men who
> have been sanctioned for their free speech?
I am. see my previous articles doing just that.
> Is it b/c hate speech is *not* protected in the context of the
> university? Is it b/c certain "speech" creates a hostile
> atmosphere for certain people? I think it is.
a) "Hate speech" is ill-defined, and not illegal by any means.
b) Speech should be even more widely protected in univerty contexts.
We are, after all, searching for truth and trying to educate
ourselves about it. That involves saying things that others might
find disturbing or offensive.
c) A single incident is not an atmosphere. A single incident may
contribute to an atmosphere of hate, racism, or sexism, but that
doesn't justify performing an inversion that assigns all of the
blame for that atmosphere to one individual.
> The supreme court has deemed that "pornography" is not protected
> speech, and particularly not allowed in the work environment.
I'm not sure what you signify by the use of quotes, but pornography is
quite definitely protected. Obscenity is not, but racial epithets are
nothing like obscenity (by the supreme court's definition). Nor would
the Nu Delta poster be considered obscene.
The issue of pornography in the workplace is an open question, legally
(as far as I know. I'd have to go refresh my memory of precedent to
speak with much more accuracy than that). I doubt any of the cases
could be stretched to cover university contexts, given the generally
free reign that courts have allowed academia.
ObMIT:
Of course, there are precedents at MIT for the administration
attempting to suppress pornographic speech. Those interested should
review the Dershowitz Reg day porn case:
http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/mit-dershowitz/
Note that this case precipitated several changes to the procedures of
the COD, nearly all of them for the worse.
Ray Jones
