It can only be clarified within a complete theory of freedom of speech, which itself must rest upon a comprehensive theory of freedom of human action.At the very least, any speech that involves the threat of force or the use of fraud should be subject to sanction under this principle, given the risk to the autonomy of others.Combine the italicized words in the basic definition with clause (3) and the threat that this definition poses to free speech becomes clear.
It is quite chilling to read the Yale website, which heralds the university’s new commitment to the principles of diversity and inclusion across all aspects of Yale life: recruitment, mentoring, communications and the like.
One of the most critical matters in dealing with the right to free speech is the correlative duty that all individuals have to avoid actions that harm another person.
But the harm principle contains much built-in ambiguity.
The letter noted, like Salovey’s op-ed, that Yale values “free expression as well as inclusivity.” But the massive level of abuse directed at Nicholas and Erika Christakis reveals how strongly Yale weighs one imperative over the other.
The errors here are not just unfortunate glitches but systematic blunders.