Free Speech: Speech vs. Action and Intentional vs. Accidental Offense

Leiter’s paper arguing for the limits of free speech and against the speech-vs-action distinction—> 

—> leads to —> 

—> idea that incidental/accidental offense is ok and/or must be tolerated, but not intentional offense.  

The fact that accidental/incidental vs intentional offense matters is why Milo is indefensible and not a good character for my vision of free speech.

—for example, in this case, I think the protestor has the better of the argument than Milo does, since Milo has previously admitted to speaking purposefully to offend and shock—sometimes as a means to fight PC and sometimes for its own sake, it seems—which does go against the school standards:

““With that, I’ll leave you with a quote from DePaul’s guide of Freedom of Speech and Expression, the bylaws that say ‘we accept that there’s a distinction from being provocative and being hurtful. Speech whose primary purpose is to wound is inconsistent with our Vincentian and Catholic values. The university community must meet these situations by reasserting our fundamental values and by fostering educational opportunities, where appropriate.’ Thank you.”” (http://depauliaonline.com/2016/06/05/students-express-anger-demand-change-town-hall-holtschneider/)

Thus, Free Speech activists should wait for a case of dispute/controversy on one on which they have substance in their offensive speech, not just whatever offends. (which also, as noted, contradicts his idea that he’s just/people should just say whatever they want without consideration of other people’s taking offense at it).

---

Of course, I need to get into Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance".