Sandy made the following invitation: "(otherwise how would one know what one is referring to when one condemns a completely abstract notion called "hate" or "offensive" speech?). One of the reasons I stopped teaching a course on the "First Amendment" is that I couldn't figure out how to teach *about* pornography, hate speech, or offensive speech, without bringing them into the class, as it were.
I would be extremely grateful to any reflections (or anecdotes) any of you might be willing to share about how you handle such subjects. I take it, for example, that none of us is hesitant to offer examples of "seditious" speech, including speech calling for the violent overthrow of the American government." The meaning of the meaner is crucial. I trust nobody on this list would be troubled by the term "harp." But once upon a time that was a term used for the Irish as offensive as the term "nigger" (in some uses) today. It was offensive because of the intention of the users. Teachers, even high school teachers, should be able to discuss the use of the term "nigger" in "Huckleberry Finn," a matter that has been the subject of litigation. Although it is meant to be a denigrating term in that novel, the denigration is always attributable to the speaker and never to the author. It is worth noting that the tactic of O.J. Simpson's defense team to insist upon the term "n-word" was surely an (appallingly successful) effort to highten the offensiveness of "nigger." Indeed, I find the term "n-word" far more offensive than "nigger." I recall that one day in a course I teach on the English language I used one of the current offensive terms (I forget now whether it was "nigger" or "fuck"). A co-ed in the back of the room called my attention to the word I had used. I responded that our subject was the English language and that any term in the language was a proper subject of discussion. I think she felt freed by the principle that that anything can be discussed if the subject is approached in the proper manner. One more anecdote. My daughter must have been twelve or thirteen when she recommended a film to me with this caveat: "There is sex in it, but it is not gratuitous." (I felt I had done an important part of my job as a parent.) Students in law school should be able to discuss when a sex scene is gratuitous and when it is not and when a racial or religious term is denigrating and when it is not. Bob O'Brien NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
