这就是企业和员工努力寻找一种政策，以减少演讲者向听众发送不感兴趣的、互惠的信息所造成的伤害。当演讲者的兴趣与听众不一致时，沟通失误所造成的伤害可能比实际传达的信息更大。演讲者表达自己的观点和想法，以参与交流，并被认为是公众关注的知情公民。然而，听众承认接受其他演讲的好处，可以参加社交聚会或寻找特定的演讲者，以获得更好的信息，并有助于追求自己的想法和价值观。当利益冲突发生时，它可以创造并认可“一种持续的愤怒状态，甚至对那些试图进行真正讨论的善意演讲者也是如此”(Hadit)。限制演讲者发送特定信息的机会会导致更多的问题，而不是预期的好处。对攻击性或不受欢迎的信息的过度审查，可能不是由信息本身造成的伤害。与米尔斯损害原则相反，损害测试解决了这一规定带来的不平等的危险。他评论说，“任何限制性政策都要通过伤害测试:政府必须能够证明，仇恨言论对其目标群体——少数族裔构成了巨大的伤害风险”(Sumner, 149)。应用这句话时,轧机触发警告使用校园国家没有权利拒绝访问人民权利表达由于争议和冒犯,萨姆纳认为“的表现形式构成的风险没有别人那么自由参与他们必须不受侵犯”(149)。攻击性的内容或不受欢迎的观点可能是破坏性的、恼人的和不雅的，但不是有害的。攻击性言论与仇恨言论大不相同。如果公共健康和自由由于不道德的行为、观点和观点而受到威胁，那么国家的监管将被认为是适当的。但是，既然所有公民都有言论自由的基本权利，认为所有冒犯性和不受欢迎的观点都是容易出错的，这本身就是不道德的。为了满足对更好的公共健康和个人自由的需求，国家必须通过危害测试，才能强制要求人们拥有言论自由。
澳洲商科assignment代写:企业和员工的政策
This is where corporations and staff struggle to find a policy that reduces the amount of harm caused by the sending of a message from a speaker to an audience that is uninterested and reciprocal. When a speaker’s interest fails to fall in unison with an audience, miscommunication can cause more harm than the actual message being sent. A speaker expresses their opinions and ideas to engage in communication and to be recognized as an informed citizen on public concern. An audience member however, acknowledges the benefits of being the recipient of other speeches, and can attend social gathers or seek out certain speakers to become better informed, and facilitated in the pursuit of one’s ideas and values. When a conflict of interest arises, it can create and endorse “a constant state of outrage, even toward well-meaning speakers trying to engage in genuine discussion” (Hadit). Limiting the opportunity for a speaker to send certain messages can cause more issues then projected benefits. Harm, perhaps rather than by the messages themselves, is being caused by the over censorship of the offensive or unpopular messages. The harm test, in contrast to Mills harm principle, addresses the danger of inequality that comes with this regulation. He comments that “any restrictive policy passes a harm test: the government must be able to show that hate speech poses a significant risk of harm to minorities that are its targets” (Sumner, 149). When applying this quote by Mill to trigger warnings being used on campus the state has little right to deny access to people’s rights to expression due to controversy and offence, Sumner concludes that “forms of expression which pose no risk to others then the freedom to engage in them must be inviolable” (149). Offensive content or unpopular opinions can be destructive, annoying and indecent but are not harmful. Offensive speech is vastly different than hate speech. If public health and liberty are at risk due to immoral actions opinions and views, then State regulation would be deemed appropriate. But since all citizens have the fundamental right to free speech it would be immoral in itself to assume all offensive and unpopular opinions are fallible. For the state to impose on one’s freedom of expression to meet the demand for better public health and individual liberty it would need to pass the harm test.
