ssss

One of the philosophical questions that is being presented in Mill’s philosophical work “On Liberty," is whether we should prohibit the use of hate speech. The main focus of this assignment is to prove that the University of Pittsburgh should prohibit hate speech throughout the entire school. I believe this question is of great importance because if hate speech is allowed on a school campus which is comprised of a diverse student body, it could negatively impact the deliberative process of many of these groups. According to Brink, “Mill thinks that it is our deliberative capacities, especially our capacities for practical deliberation, that mark us as progressive creatures and that, as a result, the principle ingredient of our happiness or well-being must exercise these deliberative capacities.” An institution of higher learning is supposed to foster an environment where people can come to learn and participate throughout the community without fear of being discriminated or for their well-being. At first, I will explain how Mill would support the conclusion of prohibiting hate speech. Then I will give an objection to the argument that I have attributed to Mill. Finally, I will reveal my true stance on this issue a debate on the behalf of my ideals.
The reason why regulation of hate speech is controversial because freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental of our constitutional liberties. Freedom of speech allows us to exercise our deliberative capacities and may be hindered by a regulation of any speech. Mill does not imply that these fundamental liberties can never be restricted but rather can be regulated. Mill defines intemperate speech as a speech that is “invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like”. Mill uses...

... middle of paper ...

...s of the University of Pittsburgh.
Mill’s argument is based upon the ability to distinguish the difference between hate speech and other offensive types of speech. The importance behind this debate is that with hate speech we are not able to participate in deliberative process and reach our potential as progressive creatures. In this paper, Mill’s argument is able to create a comparative scope in which we can categorize hate speech. Then we looked at an objection to Mill’s argument which was that we distinguish between the line and risk restricting speech that should be free. Finally I give my rebuttal which sums up to being that with the strict definitions like the Stanford Provision we are able to find this relative bright line and able to parse out hate speech from discriminatory. In conclusion we should prohibit the us of hate at the University of Pittsburgh.