Imagine that you serve as a supervisor in a nonsectarian social services agency that provides social and
counseling services to families and children of all kinds and compositions. One of the professionals you
supervise is a relatively young social worker who has worked in the agency for just a few weeks. During
one of your early supervisory meetings, you begin to discuss a case that you plan to assign to her. The
case involves a lesbian couple who recently migrated to your community. They want professional help to
accomplish two goals: First, they want to get married. They want to know if gay marriage is legal in this
state and, if it is not, how and where they can go to become legally married couple. Second, they hope to
have a child — preferably through artificial ainsemination or, if that fails, through adoption. They would like
help in discussing these issues and making plans to accomplish these goals. As you describe the case, the
young social worker says, “I’m sorry, | am a religious person who believes that homosexuality is a sin and
gay marriage is simply wrong.”
Questions: As the young social worker’s supervisor,
a) What would you identify as the ethical issues in this situation?
b) What would you advise her to consider?
c) What would you suggest that she do?
Indeed, even free discourse advocates perceive the significance of restricting and encircling free articulation which is additionally upgraded by statutory instruments. For example, it is the perspective on Judge Oliver Holmes that yelling fire in a pressed performance center ought not be viewed as a type of freedom. He included: 'The inquiry for each situation is whether the words utilized are utilized in such conditions and are of such a nature as to make an obvious risk that they will realize the substantive wrongs that congress has a privilege to avert as it is an issue of closeness and degree.' Similarly, Meiklejohn contended that requesting free articulation without anyone else's input administered men does not mean each individual has an unalienable ideal to communicate wherever, in any case and at whatever point they want. Hence, individuals should just do as such through the suitable channels. Advancing correspondence is maybe more vital than keeping up a flat out free articulation strategy in a liberal equitable society. This ought to be the situation as certain types of discourse are hurtful which forces a commitment on the State to keep up the assurance of free society. This negates Mill who molded opportunity of articulation upon dynamic culture as the primary priority. Yet, Mill's view has been censured by social equality scholars as it underpins independence, while equity ought to be the need for a just society. Besides the mischief guideline proposed by Mill, Fienberg proposed what is known as the offense standard as a method for illustration a line between what ought to and ought not be adequate in free speech. Moreover, Waldron condemned Dworkin's proposition which bolstered total free discourse as he has confidence in directing discourse since it will advance uniformity and incorporate minorities in the popularity based process. According to Lord Devlin, the open great ought to beat the privileges of the individual; along these lines, the ethics of society must be upheld by law. This keeps the breaking down of society which is leeway of having a common profound quality policy. Based on this contention, managing free discourse does not damage the liberal just society standards as it guarantees correspondence and ethical quality. Furthermore, it would most likely be better if bothersome free discourse did not happen in any case. Beside the hypothetical part of the situation, the right to speak freely is constrained by human rights instruments as it isn't absolute. Based on the three phase test in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, confining discourse is a genuine activity if the required criteria are f>GET ANSWER