Our text book, The Art of Public Speaking by Stephen E. Lucas teaches why ethics in both speaking and listening are essential for public speakers. Please blog on the following hypothetical situation and be sure to keep in mind the textbook's suggestions for ethical speechmaking.
A student presents a persuasive speech in class. The speech content includes language that is interpreted by many of the fellow classmates as insulting and abusive. Do you think it is proper for an instructor to create boundaries on student’s speech language? Should a college or university discipline a student who uses offensive language that is directed towards another person’s race, gender, religion or sexual orientation? Should this kind of language be allowable if it relates or supports the speaker’s point of view?
5 comments:
Although one should never intend to stifle free speech, or avoid suppressed controversial and opposing issues, there are lines that should not be crossed. A good example of this is a recent Saturday Night Live skit where the performers, in their attempt in parody, suggested that Governor Palin's husband was having sexual relations with his daughters. Language and a suggestion of this kind in public speaking would certainly be offensive and inappropriate.
A college or university should discipline a student who uses offensive language; however, the college or university should give the student an opportunity to correct such offensive behavior and speech. It is also the role of the school to assure a safe and non-hostile environment for all of its students. Strong opinions and controversial ideas should be considered fair game; however, reasonable and non offensive boundaries need to be respected.
Offensive language should not be used at all. The speaker could advance their issue or point of view through more constructive use of language. Speakers should learn to promote and advance their use of ideas without offending others.
Jon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ljf5URCZkc
Offensive and unfunny SNL Palin skit discussed on CNN with a political speech writer.
Freedom of speech is one the founding ideals of the United States, but some restrictions apply for obvious reasons. One cannot walk into a crowded room and proclaim fire if there is no fire present. It is also unlawful to shout profanities and derogatory comments in public. The reasoning behind this is there is no need for it. In the same manner, one can get a point across without using racist comments or offensive language. Although the usage may strengthen or support a point or argument, there are undoubtedly ways to make the same point without the language. While I do not believe this sort of language should be banned, I believe there is a time and place for it, the classroom not being one of them.
As American citizens, freedom of speech is our birth-right. We can speak out against the government without fear of being abducted. We can protest and speak out against others beliefs and defend our own. There is, however, a line that has to be drawn. Freedom of speech only goes so far. As Chris stated, freedom of speech does not cover someone from endangering the lives of others by yelling fire in a crowded auditorium, when there is no fire. It also should not be applied to a school setting when others are forced to endure a fellow student's speech, regardless of the fact that it might defend the speaker's perspective. If it is obvious that the speaker's intentions are malicious, then offensive language should not be tolerated. If the student does not intend to offend anyone, does not share offensive beliefs, and prefaces his or her language with the fact that they are only using it for the purpose of a demonstration, then it should be allowed as long as everyone that is listening is in agreement and no one will feel offended or take the speech personally. Every situation is different, but the bottom line is that everyone present must feel comfortable and the speakers intentions must be evaluated.
After reading the book's views it feels that no intitution should regulate what a person says; however, it would be wise and responsible for a speaker to use his or her better judgment to decide what should or should not be said. It is true that no person should infringe on a person's right to free speech but the book also points out that when trying to make a point it is not in your intrest as a speaker to use offensive language as it would take away from your own credibility and give others a poor impression of you. Once you have lost the audiences respect they will stop listening and your point won't be heard anyway. So, although no institution or school should have the right to punish poor choices in language not all words belong in publically made speeches for any reason.
Post a Comment