4 ms·
It certainly can count as both hostility and free speech. Often the most contentious examples of free speech are highly hostile: hate speech, for example. There
by shard 4y ago
It certainly can count as both hostility and free speech. Often the most contentious examples of free speech are highly hostile: hate speech, for example. Therefore the context is rather, is this protected speech? A private company can discipline an employee for their speech in the name of the company, and that would be okay, since that is not protected speech. And the ruling by the court appears to be that this is indeed protected speech, in which case the free speech categorization trumps the hostility categorization.
- zug_zug 4y agoYou're missing the core of point which is -- does that mean a teacher calling your son "Ma'am" is also protected speech? If not, who/what is the official source-of-truth on which pronouns a teacher can use to a student? And then secondly, if a student dislikes it, and addresses the (male?) professor as Ma'am, does that student have equal protection from all consequences?
- shard 4y agoI think the core point is addressed: Based on the ruling, a teacher calling someone's son "Ma'am" should also be protected speech. The ruling makes no judgement on what the student can say, as the student is not an employee of the college. I would imagine that the college is able to enact consequences to the student's speech, and not run afoul of legal issues, but I am not a lawyer.