3 - Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips: Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech

1. How would you describe the argument that Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips make?

a. Trying to restrict or limit hate speech would make the problem of hate speech

worse than it already is.

2. Characterize the evidence Stevens and Phillips use. Do you find it convincing? Explain

your answer.

a. Stevens and Phillips used research showing how, when students were restricted

in doing something, they had a desire to do it more. Also, studies show that,

when an ingroup feels “targeted” or “discriminated” against, such as the white

supremacist, they target the outgroup with hate speech because the ingroup is

being restricted. This makes the ingroup seem more appealing and his views and

him more powerful. I find this evidence convincing because Stevens and Phillips

aren’t just making claims; they are providing it with research that supports their

claim. Even though they aren’t including both sides of the argument, I believe

that they are providing useful, accurate information that shows that what they

claim is correct.

3. Why do Stevens and Phillips believe that censoring hate speech is more harmful than

allowing it-that is, what is the logic behind their central argument?

a. Stevens and Phillips believe that censoring hate speech is more harmful than

allowing it because, when people see that it is restricted, they believe that it is

violating their First Amendment rights. Then, even if they don’t agree with the

speech that is getting restricted, they still support it, causing it to become more

popular.

4. What suggestions do they make for combating hate speech without putting limits on it?

Do you think those suggestions are practical? Do you think they would ultimately prove
 successful? Explain your response, drawing from historical evidence, your own

experiences, or current events to support your position.

a. The suggestions they make for combating hate speech without putting limits on it

are to use speech against it and engage with the people with opposing views.

This can be done through things such as donating to counter causes or rebutting

the persons’ speech during the question and answer session. I don’t think that

those suggestions are practical or will prove successful because, many times,

people aren’t shaken about their beliefs, especially when they believe what they

are saying. This usually causes the people being countered to speak out more.

This was shown through the Boston Massacre. The people were against the

British soldiers’ presence in Massachusetts, so the people would constantly

belittle and degrade the guards on duty. Nobody restricted the people, so they

continued to belittle the guards, eventually leading to the guards opening fire on

the people, killing four people.

4 - Lata Nott: Free Speech Isn’t Always Valuable. That’s Not the Point.

1. What aspects of human nature does Lata Nott hold responsible for the ways the First

Amendment is misinterpreted?

a. Lata Nott believes that, instead of acknowledging the fact that we aren’t that fond

of the First Amendment in practice, we prefer to blame it on people who use the

First Amendment to spread their own, controversial views or use it to spread hate

speech. We want to make ourselves believe that we love the First Amendment,

even though many times, we don’t.

2. What point does Nott make in paragraph 5 when she discusses partisan media? How

does this point contribute to her overall argument?

 a. She makes the point that people love free speech when the person speaking

shares their views, but hates it when someone with contradicting views speaks.

We only want to hear what we believe in. This contributes to her overall

argument that we don’t always care for or love the First Amendment, especially

when it allows people to express opinions that don’t agree with our own views.

However, we need to learn to deal with it because we need the First Amendment.

3. How does Nott use rhetorical questions to develop her argument?

a. Nott uses rhetorical questions to make a point and reiterate her argument. Her

questions, even though rhetorical, are included to make the readers think about

what she is saying and to understand our own views on the issue. Her rhetorical

questions make us realize the facts she is stating and how what she is saying is

true in many ways.

4. Why does Nott believe we all need to stand up for the First Amendment even if we don’t

“love” it?

a. Nott believes that we need to stand up for the First Amendment even if we don’t

“love” it because, even though free speech isn’t always valuable, it gives us the

power to decide what is valuable expression and protects our right to speech.

The First Amendment was meant to keep this power out of the hands of public

officials and the government; we wouldn’t want the government/people in power

to have control over our speech.

5 - Laura Beth Nielsen: The Case for Restricting Hate Speech

1. Laura Beth Nielsen’s op-ed focuses on the targets of unlimited free speech as well as

groups who are “protected from troubling speech” (para. 6). How does she classify

them?
 a. She classifies the protected groups as the powerful, popular, and the people who

would experience “tangible harm” if not “protected from troubling speech. She

classifies the targets as the “normal people” or the people of traditionally

disadvantaged groups: African-Americans, women, LGBTQ+ community, etc.

2. Why does Nielsen consider unlimited free speech to be an equity issue-that is, an issue

that creates an unfair disparity between and among groups of people?

a. Nielsen considers unlimited free speech to be an equity issue because certain

groups are protected from troubling speech but others are not. For example, the

rich were protected when city governments banned panhandling because it

“causes harm”, yet women still have to deal with men catcalling them while

African-Americans have to deal with the N-word.

3. How does Nielsen define harm in the context of her argument? How does this definition

relate to how she develops her position?

a. Nielsen defines harm, in the context of her argument, as negative physical and

mental health outcomes. Harm is tangible, serious, and creates disparities

among others. It, for example, can create inequality or enforce discrimination. In

her words, harm reflects “the deep inequalities in our society”. This definition

relates to how she develops her position because she argues that harm isn’t just

physical abuse and/or causes other people pain or “suffering”; harm is a force

that causes negative mental as well as physical consequences. Her definition of

harm helps show how “hate speech” creates more harm than it does benefits; it

embodies the “historical roots of race and gender oppression”.

4. How does Nielsen acknowledge the counterargument? How does she refute it?

a. Nielsen talks about how people who oppose her line of thinking; they “insist that

protecting hate speech is consistent with and even central to our founding

principles”. If hate speech was regulated, our rights in the First Amendment
 would be taken away. She refutes it by saying that, even if you oppose her views,

the opponents must at least acknowledge that the “right to speech is already far

from absolute” and that “disadvantaged members of our society already have to

shoulder a heavy burden with serious consequences”. Since we have the ability

to be hateful towards others, members of disadvantaged communities or

traditionally marginalized groups have to suffer.

After reading the views on free speech, I have gained more knowledge on the controversy

regarding free speech. Even though I knew somewhat about free speech, I believed that it and

the First Amendment were already pretty clear on what they meant and what rights they

protected. However, through reading the articles, I know that this issue is more complicated

than it seems, especially regarding issues involving “hate speech”. I do believe that “hate

speech” causes harm to many groups, yet I also believe that, if we try to restrict it, people will

resist as it is “encroaching on their First Amendment rights”. All in all, I don’t know how I would

handle the issue as it is very complicated to deal with. It is hard to deal with this problem

correctly, but there are many ways to deal with it incorrectly. No matter which way the right to

speech is dealt with, there will always be backlash.