Abstract
Popular argument about the regulation of hate speech on today's college campuses has generated two essential positions. The first position views the issue as centered on constitutionally guaranteed free speech. The second believes the issue to be the protection of marginalized groups from public acts of bigotry and discrimination. Since debates tend to dichotomize arguable issues, resolution is dichotomized as well. From one perspective either the behaviors are limited and a constitutional right is abridged, or questionable behaviors are allowed and free speech is thus protected. From the other perspective, either human beings continue to suffer the indignities of unregulated symbolic assaults or the university provides students from under - represented oppressed groups with the protection they require in order to live and learn in an academic environment. The interesting point here is that only one of the solutions is being presented as reasonable.
Journal Title
Iowa Journal of Speech Communication
Volume
23
Issue
2
First Page
44
Last Page
46
Language
en
File Format
application/pdf
Recommended Citation
Nance, Theresa
(1991)
"Response to "The Case for a Right to Reply," by Theresa Nance,"
Iowa Journal of Communication: Vol. 23:
No.
2, Article 7.
Available at:
https://scholarworks.uni.edu/ijc/vol23/iss2/7
Copyright
©1991 Iowa Communication Association
