Instructions  Short writing assignments must be no less than two hundred (200) of your own words . This means that quotations do not count against the two hundred words . I will not even read assignments shorter than the required minimum of 200 words (I use a program to monitor word-count) and you will automatically receive zero (0) points for any such assignments. I expect a professionally written essay that is well formulated, without spelling and grammatical errors. I will deduct points for sloppily written essays (see the rubric below). In your essay you should address the question posed directly and thoroughly. You do not need to waste too much space on background unless the question of the essay specifically demands such background. Assignment  Do you think that educational institutions such as universities and colleges should adopt a speech-code that regulates hate speech?  Do you think that such a code is compatible with the moral right to free speech?  Your answer should take the shape of an argument that addresses all three layers of the problem discussed in my class notes as well as the arguments presented in the essays by Arthur and Altman. I expect a professionally written essay that incorporates the lessons you learned from previous essays.  Notes from Instructor  Free Speech Mill (2007); Arthur (2007); Altman (2007). Note : Remember that you must also read the articles assigned each week. Instructor’s notes are not a substitute for reading the original articles.  In this week supplementary notes I will not outline the readings. Instead I will let students analyze themselves the readings without the benefit of outlining the authors myself. I expect that at this time you should be able to do so yourself. This should be a valuable exercise for you all. I will however outline the Preliminary-Section to set up the problem for you. Next week I will continue outlining the readings as usual. A. Preliminaries. 1. This week we explore the topic of free-speech. Free speech is a topic that spans throughout three intimately interconnected layers: moral , legal , and institutional .  I. Moral Layer : The central moral question is whether individual human persons have a moral right to free speech and if so, what is the basis of this right. Since the Enlightenment it has been supposed that among the natural rights with which persons are endowed is the right to speak freely without unjustified interference by others. By ‘ natural’ right I mean a right that is not gained by means of a legal privilege or a de jure right. A natural right is rather an inherent part of what it is to be a person and consequently it is logically or conceptually (not historically) prior to any external authority.  What is the basis of the moral right to free speech, if such exists? The most viable answer is that the right to free speech emanates from the fact that persons are autonomous beings that are endowed with the a ...

1. Instructions
Short writing assignments must be
no less
than two hundred (200)
of
your own words
. This means that
quotations do not count against the two hundred words
. I will not even read assignments shorter than the required
minimum of 200 words (I use a program to monitor word-count)
and you will automatically receive zero (0) points for any such
assignments. I expect a professionally written essay that is well
formulated, without spelling and grammatical errors. I will
deduct points for sloppily written essays (see the rubric below).
In your essay you should address the question posed directly
and thoroughly. You do not need to waste too much space on
background unless the question of the essay specifically
demands such background.
Assignment
Do you think that educational institutions such as universities
and colleges should adopt a
speech-code
that regulates hate speech? Do you think that such a code is
compatible with the moral right to free speech?
Your answer should take the shape of an argument that
addresses all three layers of the problem discussed in my class
notes as well as the arguments presented in the essays by Arthur
and Altman.

2. I expect a professionally written essay that incorporates the
lessons you learned from previous essays.
Notes from Instructor
Free Speech
Mill (2007); Arthur (2007); Altman (2007).
Note
: Remember that you must also read the articles assigned each
week. Instructor’s notes are not a substitute for reading the
original articles.
In this week
supplementary
notes I will not outline the readings. Instead I will
let students analyze themselves the readings without the benefit
of
outlining the authors myself.
I expect that at this time you should be able to do so yourself.
This should be a valuable exercise for you all.
I will however outline the Preliminary-Section to set up the
problem for you.
Next week I will continue outlining the readings as usual.

3. A. Preliminaries.
1. This week we explore the topic of free-speech. Free speech is
a topic that spans throughout three intimately interconnected
layers:
moral
,
legal
, and
institutional
.
I.
Moral Layer
: The central moral question is whether individual human
persons have a
moral right
to free speech and if so, what is the basis of this right. Since
the Enlightenment it has been supposed that among the
natural rights
with which persons are endowed is the right to speak freely
without unjustified interference by others. By ‘
natural’
right I mean a right that is not gained by means of a legal
privilege or a
de jure
right. A natural right is rather an inherent part of what it is to
be a person and consequently it is logically or conceptually (not
historically) prior to any external authority.
What is the basis of the moral right to free speech, if such
exists?
The most viable answer is that the right to free speech emanates

4. from the fact that persons are
autonomous
beings that are endowed with the ability to
self-govern
themselves guided by the light of their own
self-reflective reason
. Since persons are self-governing beings, the source of any
authority to which they may be subject must arise from their
own autonomous nature and must be justified based on such
autonomy. Thus, all external authority that limits the rights of
individual persons must be ultimately justified in terms of an
autonomous transfer of such authority to an external source.
This principle that governs the establishment of a social
structure and the authority of any sovereign determines the
scope and limits of the authority of any governmental
institution.
What are the benefits of free-speech within a social context?
In his ground breaking essay
Freedom of Thought and Discussion
, Mill (2007) has enumerated three fundamental benefits to fr ee
speech in any social environment: (i) Free speech is necessary
in a social context in order to pursue the truth; (ii) Free speech
is necessary in a social context in order to protect other rights
such as the right to liberty, privacy, and religion; and (iii) Free
speech is necessary in a social context in order to enable and
enhance the autonomy of individual persons.
II.
Legal Layer
: In the United States all legal matters are instituted by the
Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court to
particular cases. Among a variety of other provisions, the

5. Constitution governs the scope and limit of various branches of
the Federal Government as well as all other local authorities.
The drafters of the Constitution were influenced by the ideas of
the Enlightenment and the Social Contract Theory which offered
a novel justification of the authority of the state. It is, therefore,
not a surprise that the Constitution guarantees the
legal right
of free speech as one of the most basic pillars of our society. It
is important to understand that the constitutional right of free
speech constraints first and foremost the authority of
governmental institutions (at all levels) to limit the freedom of
speech of persons and does not as such apply to non-
governmental institutions. However, the protection of free
speech extends beyond governmental institutions under
conditions determined by the Supreme Court.
III.
Institutional Layer
: By ‘institutional layer’ I mean all non-governmental
institutions, including educational institutions. Our current
topic pertains to the following question:
Are educational institutions such as colleges and universities
justified to implement a
speech-code
designed
to regulate what may be said within the confines of such
institutions?
It is important to emphasize that the problem of speech-codes is
not primarily constitutional or even a matter of academic
freedom. Even if some form of speech-code is deemed
constitutional and does not violate academic freedoms, it is still

6. an open question whether academic institutions are justified to
implement such codes and under what conditions.
The two authors on this week’s reading list examine the
conditions under speech-codes are justified. Both authors agree
that speech-codes are justified only if they restrict speech that
is
harmful
to an individual or group. The question is what constitutes such
harm. Pay careful attention how Arthur and Altman analyze the
relevant notion of harm caused by certain kind of speech and
the differences in their analysis. Good Luck!
Sample A paper from instructor DO NOT USE please
Introduction
The topic of free speech touches the nearly all bases concerning
the landscape of human autonomy. The question most salient in
the matter—should the freedom to say what one wants, when
one wants, and where one wants to be legally permissible—is
taken up by philosopher’s John Stuart Mill, John Arthur, and
Andrew Altman. Mill proposes that it’s unjust to thwart any
opinion, whether true or false. However, he believes it’s
imperative to control the timing and location of free speech.
Arthur expands on Mills’ proposition, advocating for free
speech without government censorship. Altman proposes an
antithesis to Arthurs argument, proposing that speech codes
(rules that punish those for speech meant to others based on
race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and sexual
identity) should define the boundaries of free speech.
Layers of free speech

7. Moral layer- The moral—opposed to the natural—right to speak
freely on the level of inherent human principles.
Legal layer- The rights given through the Constitution and
Supreme Court.
Institutional layer- the rights given in non-government
institutions, i.e., universities.
Speech code applied to each layer
Moral Layer
The speech code is unconsciously applied here. Humans are
creatures that thrive on interpersonal connection and to
maintain this connection it’s imperative that humans interact in
ways that promote benign characteristics: love, goodwil l,
empathy, and compassion. However, the inherent speech code
branching from human morality is only congruous with small
tribes of close neighbors and family. It can’t be applied to large
civilizations inundated with unfamiliar faces and agendas.
Legal Layer
Unlike the moral layer, the legal layer can impose moral rules
in a utilitarian—whats best for most—manner, not falling victim
to tribalism or biases, but instead remaining impartial to the
well-being of human beings overall. While speech codes
shouldn't be applied too broadly as to eliminate important
opinions, there are multidimensional instances in which codes

8. are critically essential: verbally inciting a rowdy crowd of white
supremacists to bludgeon a by-standing Jewish family. Non-
mailable speech codes applied to this layer are bound to violate
basic human rights, due to the complexity and fickleness of
human desires, as well as our differing capacities of dealing
with suffering.
Institutional layer
Here, in this layer, there are clear justifications to uphold a
speech code, especially in educational institutions (universities
& colleges).
The educational institutions are homesteads for rational
thinking, as opposed to safe havens for irrationality
Many college and university students are 18 or older, making
them legal adults, but are new to the autonomous lifestyle, and
are more prone to coercion and harm taken from offensive
opinions.
Lack of speech codes can dramatically hinder students learning
experience due to the possible emotional incitement it can
cause. For example, It’s more conducive to institutional
equality that impulsive student (a) faces speech code
repercussions over the sensitive student (b) facing offensive
repercussions from the student (a).
_________________________________