S339 Freedom of Speech is designed to introduce students to public
arguments and debates -- controversies -- in which "free speech," "
freedom of speech" and sometimes "freedom of expression"  play a
central role.  Freedom of speech is of course typically considered the
cornerstone of American democracy and no one who seriously considers
themselves to be "American" would be so foolish as to oppose the value
of "free speech" -- at least as an abstract principle. But therein
lies the rub, for determining the boundaries of the meaning and use of
the concept of  "free speech" in practice has seldom been a simple or
uncontested matter. To begin, there is the question as to what we mean
by the word "speech"? Does it really only apply to the spoken word, or
does it function metaphorically to characterize all forms of oral,
verbal and nonverbal communication or expression?  Is speech merely a
mode of representing ideas, feelings, and emotions ("Sticks and stones
can break my bones, but names can never harm me!"), or is speech a
consequential mode of action?  If speech is a mode of action, and if
as a matter of principle we hold people responsible for the
consequences of their actions, how do we (or should we) distinguish
between the acceptable and unacceptable consequences of speech acts?
Once such issues are settled -- and in practice they never seem to be
for very long --  does the commitment to "free speech" give one the
right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?  To verbally assault
pregnant women entering an abortion clinic or to taunt individuals
wearing animal fur? To produce and distribute "pornography"? To burn
the American flag or to desecrate vaunted religious symbols in public?
To employ "hate speech"? To criticize the government during times of
national crisis or at the "risk" of national security?  To spread
lies?  Or alternately, does the First Amendment allow the possibility
of restricting certain speech acts through "campus speech codes," "
community standards," or state or federal laws like zoning ordinances,
the  Communication Decency Act, or the National Patriot Act?  What
criteria should guide such regulations?  And further, who should make
such decisions? The police? The legislature?  The Courts?  The
Attorney General?  Regulatory agencies or commissions?  Local school
boards?  Public opinion leaders (Larry Flynt or Jerry Falwell)?
Philosophers and public intellectuals?  The "culture industry"?
Corporate boards or shopping mall owners?  Ordinary citizens (i.e., "a
jury of one's peers")?  And the list goes on.  These are all issues
that responsible citizen needs to be able to negotiate, decide, and
speak to sensibly and effectively in public forums, but where is one
to begin?

The primary goal in this class is to provide students with a
background that will enable them to interpret, evaluate, and
participate in debates that involve the freedom of speech and
expression responsibly by examining the rhetorical history of "free
speech" -- what it has meant, how and why it has come to mean, and how
its meaning has changed--- in the context of American public
discourse. By the end of the semester students will develop a
detailed, critical understanding of the range of competing arguments
employed to justify expanding or restricting the meaning of "free
speech" in a democratic society, as well as an understanding of the
persuasability and implications of such arguments as they function in
public controversies.  Readings will draw from Supreme Court decisions
and public debates over free speech related issues.  Students will be
asked to write and revise 4 short essays (1,000 words + notes) and
participate in a series of in-class debates.  The course carries
credit as a "writing" course.