Lesson 12: Politics

The Freedom of Speech / Argumentative Synthesis Essay

I. Warm-up
★ Do you think your country has free speech?
✎ Should free speech be a human right? Why/ why not?

II. Reading
1. Reading text

Twitter is right to have special rules for Donald Trump

– it’s recognising that not all tweets are equal
Fabienne Peter | July 22, 2019

Twitter recently decided that rule-breaking tweets from influential politicians would be
hidden behind a warning. Journalists were quick to label the new policy the “Trump
rule”. But it wasn’t long before the rule was put to the test and found lacking.

Recent tweets by Donald Trump, which have widely been condemned as racist, were not
hidden, and Twitter declared they didn’t violate the company’s policies.

The internet is often hailed as a democratic space, offering opportunities to everyone to

contribute to public debate. Twitter’s new rule now introduces a two tier system, with
the political influencers treated differently from regular users. Does this make sense or
should the same standards apply to everyone on social media?

To shed light on this issue we can turn to ideas of one of the most eminent philosophers
 2

of the 20th century: John Rawls. While Rawls is best known for his Theory of Justice
(1971), he also wrote extensively on the rules that should govern political debate and
the public justification of political decisions.

Of course, our political world has changed very significantly since Rawls’ time. A
significant portion of political debate has now moved online, to platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This move has had profound effects on the way in
which political issues are debated and on how democratic institutions operate. The
question of what a healthy public debate would look like in a democratic society remains
the same, however.

Twitter justifies its new policy as an attempt to protect “the health of the public
conversation”. On its blog, the company explains that it sees the contributions from
politically influential figures as especially important in this regard. “By nature of their
positions these leaders have outsized influence and sometimes say things that could be
considered controversial or invite debate and discussion. A critical function of our
service is providing a place where people can openly and publicly respond to their
leaders and hold them accountable.”

Rawls’ views about a healthy sphere of public debate lends support to policies that
single out the contributions from influential political figures. In his book Political
Liberalism (1993), Rawls proposed a concentric circles model of the public sphere, with
those closer to the political decision-making process positioned closer to the centre. He
used this model to argue that the sphere of public debate is not a level playing field. The
closer a contribution to public debate is to decision making, the more important it is that
it complies with responsible standards.

Rawls’ focus was on the place of religious views in the political sphere. He thought that
upholding freedom of religion and the freedom to voice even very controversial ideas
was of particular importance in settings that are not closely linked to political decision
making, for example in the context of a family or a church gathering.

Contributions to political debate, by contrast, should aim to avoid being based on very
controversial assumptions and should conform with core democratic commitments to
the equality and liberty of all citizens. Government representatives and candidates for
political office should exercise special care in upholding these standards, for example
when defending a particular political decisions or policy proposals.
 3

The focus of the new Twitter policy is different. It is concerned with balancing respect
for the demands of freedom of speech with respect for its rules against abusive
behaviour. Because it allows tweets that violate its rules to remain accessible, the policy
as it stands is even at risk of further watering down the standards that apply to the
contributions of influential political figures. The recent controversy over Trump’s racist
tweets shows just how much more needs to be done.

But insofar as the new policy aims to manage the special status of social media
contributions by influential political figures, it is a step in the right direction. More
ambitious attempts to protect the health of political debate will hopefully follow. And
Rawls’ model remains helpful in this regard, as it allows us to grasp why it makes sense
to subject different social media contributions to different standards.

Upholding political standards

Many contributions on social media, even if they are very widely shared, occur in
contexts that are quite removed from political decision making. If you use social media
to post a picture of your outfit of the day, for example, the standards of responsible
political decision making are of limited use to guide what you should post.

Other contributions tosocial media are more directly political. Among them are general
contributions to political debate, for example a discussion about Brexit in a large group
of Facebook friends, or #metoo or #blacklivesmatter tweets. But also among them are
those posted by representatives of government or candidates for political office, that is
by people with especially close links to political decision making.

Because a healthy sphere of public debate is a key feature of a well-functioning

democracy, both types of political contributions should aim to uphold, not undermine,
the standards of responsible political decision making. But for contributions from
influential political figures, this is especially important. Because their posts carry so
much weight in both public and political debate, they pose a much greater threat to
both.

For this reason, special rules for Trump and his fellow world leaders make sense. But we
need social media policies that can really deliver this.

Source: Twitter is right to have special rules for Donald Trump – it's recognising that not all
tweets are equal (theconversation.com)
 4

2. Discussion
★ Does freedom of speech mean you can just say anything? Why/why not?

★ ____

III. Writing: Argumentative Synthesis

1. Informative vs. Argumentative Synthesis
In academic research and writing, synthesizing the information from the obtained
available resources results in novelty, discovery, reaching the common sense on a
debatable issue, clarifying the perplexity of the subject under the discussion, or making
the point on a controversial topic. Your rhetorical goal for writing a synthesis essay will be
identified by the given assignment.
In informative writing, you are explaining the discussion points and topics to your readers
without taking a position on one side or another, without showing your opinion. Even if
the topic is debatable and highly controversial, instead of promoting your personal
opinion, you have to objectively introduce the ideas of others, explain and show how their
information is related to each other’s, and how the information may connect and diverge.
You are not showing your agreement with some authors and disagreement with the
others. You should stay neutral both in your comments on the found information and in
your conclusions reached at the end of the discussion.
In argumentative synthesis, the main difference may be that you are to support your
ideas with evidence found in multiple sources, show and explain how the authors’ opinions
relate, who of your authors agree and who disagree on the controversial issue, while your
comments on the information retrieved from these sources and your conclusions will
clarify your own position in the debate.
First, you start the debate with the assertion that sets the goal for the debate, its
controversy:
● Example: Societal changes are a large part in the debate of free speech and its limitations.
The debate is about whether offensive speech should be punished when it is said with the
intent to psychologically harm a group or person, or if immoral or scandalous speech
should be off-limits.
Then, you are moderating the debate among the experts
 5

● Professor of Law E disagrees…

● His thought is echoed by Professor R from the University of …
● Authors F and S also discuss and assess…
● Following in their steps, Authors D and T express…
● Unfortunately, in opposition to their respect, Author X asserts that…
● This brings us back to the viewpoint of Authors F and S, who argue that…
Finally, conclude the discussion and finalize your position:
● Thus, hateful and immoral speech – which typically associates itself with low-value
because of harmful words – will continue to find its limitations in the world even if it is
not through government operations…
When you synthesize, you are a part of the discussion and a leader of the discussion that
you have initiated. You are introducing the voices and ideas of others, so you should be
flexible and fair to all participating authors. You should avoid personal attack, as well as
other logical fallacies in your comments on the information borrowed from your source
materials.

2. Argumentative Synthesis Essay Structure

KEY: Argue your own idea, using your own reasons and reasoning—but you must use
evidence from the provided sources.
Introduction:
★ Open with an engaging hook.
★ Identify/clarify the issue at hand. (The Topic)
★ Present a clear, direct thesis statement. (Your stance on the topic)
Body Paragraphs:
★ Topic sentence: Give one reason in support of your thesis.
★ Explain as necessary.
★ Present specific supporting evidence (viz., quotes from the provided sources—but
you may also bring in other evidence such as history or literature references.
However, stay away from personal references).
○ Cite your sources. EX: According to Smith, “Technology in the classroom is the
easiest way to engage students” (Source 1).
★ All sources MUST be documented.
★ Conclude your paragraph by explaining the significance of the specific supporting
evidence provided
○ EX: What does the evidence show or suggest as true? How does it prove your
argument?
The Counter Argument Paragraph:
 6

★ Your last body paragraph should address the opposing side’s arguments.
★ A good argument must take into account that the other side of the argument may
make some valid points. But by mentioning the flaws in the opposing side’s best
evidence, you will make your argument all the more solid.
○ Ex: Although Johnson argues that “Technology diminishes students’ already
limited attention spans” it can not be denied that technology engages students
much more than a paper and pencil every will. In a world that moves so fast
students attention spans are evolving, but not keeping up with the pace of the
world will hinder student’s abilities to keep up with society’s emerging
technological avalanche (Source 2).
Concluding Paragraph:
★ Draw further significance from the reasons and evidence presented.
★ Bring the paper to a thoughtful ending. (Be philosophical! Show your wisdom!)

3. Argumentative Synthesis Essay Strategies

TWO THINGS TO REMEMBER:
❖ Crucial Fact: You will write a persuasive argument in response to a given prompt.
You will argue your opinion, supporting it with evidence from the provided sources.
❖ Key Understanding: The test writers will give you various sources reflecting
different views on a unifying issue. The sources will all be distinct. Consider the
source of the information when determining its value and claims.
Step 1:
Read the prompt. Consider the question. Determine your opinion. (It is best to read for a
purpose—viz., finding claims with which you agree and disagree.) It might be worth your
time to consider possible ideas before reading.
Step 2:
Create an organization chart, such as a T-Chart. You might be asked an agree/disagree
question or perhaps to give a list of ideas (such as what is most important to consider in a
given situation). As you read, briefly list claims/information/facts in your chart that are
deemed important. In parentheses, put the sources of that information. Understand that
some sources could contain multiple useful facts or claims—sometimes ones that could be
listed on either side of your chart.
T-CHART EXAMPLE
IDEAS/DIRECT QUOTES SOURCE

Technology is visually engaging (Pro) 1, Smith

Technology lowers attention spans (Con) 2, Johnson

 7

Technology is not going to go away (Pro) 3, Gonzalez

Technology has infinite uses and offers infinite opportunities for 3, Gonzalez
learning growth (Pro)

“Technology diminishes students’ already limited attention spans” 2, Johnson

(Con)

“Technology in the classroom is the easiest way to engage students” 1, Smith

(Pro)

Step 3:
As you read, add ideas to your chart. Also, mark the readings. Underline or circle key lines
or ideas. Look for quotable claims. Look for points that you agree with as well as points
that you disagree with (remember, addressing the opposition is central to effective
argumentation). In general, mark the texts such that you can easily return to them and find
exactly what you need.
★ Also, as you read, question the claims made by the writers. Do you note any logical
fallacies or unsupported claims? What does the write assume to be true? Is it true?
When you read statistics, consider the presumed cause of any numerical changes.
What is the presumed cause? Might there be other causes? Question! Question!
Question! Read critically—do not swallow what you see as the truth. You are
evaluating the sources and the claims—not bowing down at the altar of some
intellectual genius.
★ When you finish each source, consider writing a few notes at the bottom that
capture the essence of the article.
Step 4:
From your chart, choose the ideas/concepts that you will use to support your opinion. You
should have time to write three fully developed body paragraphs.
Step 5:
Plan to address the opposition (if appropriate to the prompt). Plan to write one paragraph
addressing the opposition’s views, explaining why you still ultimately disagree with their
position.
Step 7:
Outline your paper. Determine an opening strategy. Consider how you want to close your
paper. Organize your body paragraphs—noting that each paragraph will address and
support a particular idea that itself supports your thesis.
Step 8:
 8

Write! Don’t forget that your thesis statement must appear at the end of your
introductory paragraph, taking a firm, clear position.

4. Practice
✎ Develop ideas for the following essay prompt:

IV. Homework
Write an argumentative synthesis essay to express your opinion on the topic Freedom of
Speech. You should use at least 3 sources of reference in your synthesis.