From true threat to trigger warnings: A primer on forensic assessment of speech

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech as an essential right of Americans. It has long been established that a “true threat” is not afforded protection because the law recognizes that a verbal threat can cause harm, even if the threat is never carried out. The last decade has seen an expansion of formal and informal claims of emotional harm due to verbal statements and the content of college curricula. A new lexicon has developed describing and attempting to regulate verbal content that some people claim cause emotional harm, including “microag-gression,” “trigger,” “trigger warning,” and “safe spaces.” A culture of vindictive protectiveness characterized by heightened vigilance on speech and retaliatory litigiousness is discussed in this article. We also discuss forensic assessments of emotional harm from speech claims as we highlight the ever-present tension between our desire for safety and civil liberties in this evolving area of forensic practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-432
Number of pages6
JournalPsychiatric Annals
Volume48
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018

Fingerprint

Curriculum
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{52777e8604a5428aa476c7dbeb9674d2,
title = "From true threat to trigger warnings: A primer on forensic assessment of speech",
abstract = "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech as an essential right of Americans. It has long been established that a “true threat” is not afforded protection because the law recognizes that a verbal threat can cause harm, even if the threat is never carried out. The last decade has seen an expansion of formal and informal claims of emotional harm due to verbal statements and the content of college curricula. A new lexicon has developed describing and attempting to regulate verbal content that some people claim cause emotional harm, including “microag-gression,” “trigger,” “trigger warning,” and “safe spaces.” A culture of vindictive protectiveness characterized by heightened vigilance on speech and retaliatory litigiousness is discussed in this article. We also discuss forensic assessments of emotional harm from speech claims as we highlight the ever-present tension between our desire for safety and civil liberties in this evolving area of forensic practice.",
author = "Jessica Ferranti and Scott, {Charles L.} and Barbara McDermott",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3928/00485713-20180815-01",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "427--432",
journal = "Psychiatric Annals",
issn = "0048-5713",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - From true threat to trigger warnings

T2 - A primer on forensic assessment of speech

AU - Ferranti, Jessica

AU - Scott, Charles L.

AU - McDermott, Barbara

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech as an essential right of Americans. It has long been established that a “true threat” is not afforded protection because the law recognizes that a verbal threat can cause harm, even if the threat is never carried out. The last decade has seen an expansion of formal and informal claims of emotional harm due to verbal statements and the content of college curricula. A new lexicon has developed describing and attempting to regulate verbal content that some people claim cause emotional harm, including “microag-gression,” “trigger,” “trigger warning,” and “safe spaces.” A culture of vindictive protectiveness characterized by heightened vigilance on speech and retaliatory litigiousness is discussed in this article. We also discuss forensic assessments of emotional harm from speech claims as we highlight the ever-present tension between our desire for safety and civil liberties in this evolving area of forensic practice.

AB - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech as an essential right of Americans. It has long been established that a “true threat” is not afforded protection because the law recognizes that a verbal threat can cause harm, even if the threat is never carried out. The last decade has seen an expansion of formal and informal claims of emotional harm due to verbal statements and the content of college curricula. A new lexicon has developed describing and attempting to regulate verbal content that some people claim cause emotional harm, including “microag-gression,” “trigger,” “trigger warning,” and “safe spaces.” A culture of vindictive protectiveness characterized by heightened vigilance on speech and retaliatory litigiousness is discussed in this article. We also discuss forensic assessments of emotional harm from speech claims as we highlight the ever-present tension between our desire for safety and civil liberties in this evolving area of forensic practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055690714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055690714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3928/00485713-20180815-01

DO - 10.3928/00485713-20180815-01

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85055690714

VL - 48

SP - 427

EP - 432

JO - Psychiatric Annals

JF - Psychiatric Annals

SN - 0048-5713

IS - 9

ER -