This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
There's two completely separate articles in here -- one sociolinguistic, the other legal. AnonMoos 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that Matthew Duffie is a huge fan of Speech Code. To such a point that he considers it a way of life... - Um, ya.... that's gone -- VTEX 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
'There were approximately 645 hate speech codes in place at U.S. colleges and universities in 1990; by 1991, the number grew to over 300' - That is extremely vague. So there were 645 speech codes, and the year later there were 'over 300'. Typo? Maybe it must be 3000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.167.177 ( talk) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
75 was erroneously 645 as per
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html
--
Eliezerlp (
talk)
10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The line "Today, most talk of speech codes is within institutional contexts and refer to colleges and refers to official lists and rules established by authorities, where speech codes are occasionally used by colleges and universities as a bludgeon to suppress speech that others find offensive." is, without a doubt, not written from a neutral point of view and therefore is not encyclopedic. Therefore I added the neutrality tag and would like to foster a discussion on how this could be rewritten. Something else I'd like to point out that I noticed in the article is frequent mention of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees in a nutshell that you won't be thrown in prison for speaking your mind in a public forum. It does NOT guarantee that you won't be fired from you job (cursing at customers) or expelled from your school (disrupting class, yelling out the answers to an exam while its in progress.) In both of those cases your freedom to speak has not been stepped on - you were free to curse at the customer or yell in the classroom, and you weren't thrown in jail in either case. There is no guarantee by the first amendment that you can say anything you want and nothing at all will happen to you in any circumstances. You can't sue your company for firing you because you cussed out your boss. Anyway that's my 2 cents. Spiral5800 ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What does this word mean? I've not heard it before and can't find it in any dictionary. Is it a neologism? 202.36.179.66 ( talk) 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
maybe it should be 'full of value'. Never heard of 'valuative' before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.96.139 ( talk) 10:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This unsourced stub seems to fit better within the existing substantial article at Speech code, rather than being developed into an overlapping article at this title. Pam D 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
There's two completely separate articles in here -- one sociolinguistic, the other legal. AnonMoos 16:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that Matthew Duffie is a huge fan of Speech Code. To such a point that he considers it a way of life... - Um, ya.... that's gone -- VTEX 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
'There were approximately 645 hate speech codes in place at U.S. colleges and universities in 1990; by 1991, the number grew to over 300' - That is extremely vague. So there were 645 speech codes, and the year later there were 'over 300'. Typo? Maybe it must be 3000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.167.177 ( talk) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
75 was erroneously 645 as per
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html
--
Eliezerlp (
talk)
10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The line "Today, most talk of speech codes is within institutional contexts and refer to colleges and refers to official lists and rules established by authorities, where speech codes are occasionally used by colleges and universities as a bludgeon to suppress speech that others find offensive." is, without a doubt, not written from a neutral point of view and therefore is not encyclopedic. Therefore I added the neutrality tag and would like to foster a discussion on how this could be rewritten. Something else I'd like to point out that I noticed in the article is frequent mention of the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees in a nutshell that you won't be thrown in prison for speaking your mind in a public forum. It does NOT guarantee that you won't be fired from you job (cursing at customers) or expelled from your school (disrupting class, yelling out the answers to an exam while its in progress.) In both of those cases your freedom to speak has not been stepped on - you were free to curse at the customer or yell in the classroom, and you weren't thrown in jail in either case. There is no guarantee by the first amendment that you can say anything you want and nothing at all will happen to you in any circumstances. You can't sue your company for firing you because you cussed out your boss. Anyway that's my 2 cents. Spiral5800 ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What does this word mean? I've not heard it before and can't find it in any dictionary. Is it a neologism? 202.36.179.66 ( talk) 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
maybe it should be 'full of value'. Never heard of 'valuative' before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.96.139 ( talk) 10:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This unsourced stub seems to fit better within the existing substantial article at Speech code, rather than being developed into an overlapping article at this title. Pam D 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)