Solution Manual For Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by Boss

Solution Manual for Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by
Boss
To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

https://testbankbell.com/download/solution-manual-for-analyzing-moral-issues-7th-by-
boss/
Solution Manual for Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by Boss
Chapter 7 - Freedom of Speech
CHAPTER 7
Freedom of Speech
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Freedom of speech is a complex issue. Rather than being an absolute right, freedom of speech needs to be
considered in context and in light of other values that may conflict with it. In this chapter, freedom of
speech is analyzed primarily in the context of hate speech, campus speech codes, and censorship.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In this chapter, students will learn about
• the type of right freedom of speech is and the limitations on this right
• the relationships between freedom of speech, liberty, and democracy
• the debate over the distinction between speech and conduct
• the impact of cultural values on censorship of speech
• the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and its position on freedom of speech
• the content and historical interpretations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• the McCarthy era and why it was followed by a rapid expansion of First Amendment rights
• how the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on difference challenges to freedom of speech
• the debate in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Europe over whether or not hate speech should
be legally protected speech
• the different moral arguments for and against protecting hate speech
• the purpose of campus speech codes and their moral and legal standing
• the “politically correct” movement and why some people oppose it
• issues of freedom of speech in cyberspace
• the definition of pornography and the different views on its morality
• the different approaches to the censorship of pornography in Canada and the United States, and the
moral justifications of these different approaches
• what the different philosophers, including Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Rand, Rawls, and Mill, thought
about freedom of speech
• the origin of the expression “marketplace of ideas” and how this concept is used to justify freedom
of speech
• the libertarian position on freedom of speech and how it differs from that of critical race theorists
• the Buddhist position on freedom of speech and hate speech
Boss: Analyzing Moral Issues, 7e IM-7 | 1
© 2020 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or
distribution in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a
website, in whole or part.
Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

• the different moral issues involved in freedom of speech and hate speech. These moral issues
include social order, liberty rights and autonomy, civility and respect for human dignity, non-
maleficence, the slippery slope, impartiality, equal justice, and discrimination.
TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
1. If time is limited, cover the issue of freedom of speech and hate speech in conjunction with
the chapter on racism. For example, hate speech can be used as a debate topic relating to racism.
The issue of freedom of speech and pornography can also be tied into the topic of feminism and
sexism in Chapter 6.
2. Teach about this issue in context. Use examples of hate speech, free speech zones, and the
pressure to be politically correct on your own campus. Ask the students to come up with the
examples. Also note, that although the term “political correctness” is not used as much anymore, Commented [A1]:
the pressure to be politically correct is still as prevalent on campuses.
3. Many students defend both freedom of speech and conformity to political
correctness. Discuss this phenomenon in light of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas.
4. Avoid an absolutist approach to freedom of speech in which any censorship is seen as an
evil or the beginning of a slippery slope to complete censorship. Begin with a clear case or
cases in which freedom of speech may be limited, such as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or
speech that directly incites people to commit acts of violence, and then discuss other limitations
of freedom of speech in light of these cases.
KEY ARTICLES
John Stuart Mill (for discussion on the role of freedom of speech in a democracy)
Charles Lawrence (for discussion of how censoring hate speech is not an infringement of free speech)
ARTICLES BY TOPIC
• Freedom of Speech and Democracy: Mill
• Freedom of Speech and Racism: Lawrence
• Freedom of Speech and the Law: Lawrence, Fish,
• Freedom of Speech on Campus: Fish, Dershowitz, Marks, Yoder
• Hate Speech: Lawrence, Fish, Marks, Yoder
• Politically Correct Speech: Dershowitz
MAKING THE CONNECTION

Moral Theory (Chapter 1): The morality of freedom of speech and hate speech is addressed in discussion
questions after the following readings: Aristotle, 2; Mill, 4; Kant, 3; Confucius, 1.
Moral issues: The issue of freedom of speech and hate speech is addressed in the following articles and
case studies.
Abortion (Chapter 2)
• Case Study 3: “The Limits of Protest: Bombing of Abortion Clinics”
Euthanasia (Chapter 3)
• Case Study 3: “’Final Exit’: How to Commit Suicide”
Drug and Alcohol Use (Chapter 5)
• Case Study 5: “The Alcoholics Anonymous Confession of a Double Murderer”
Feminism, Motherhood, and the Workplace (Chapter 6)

• Case Study 1: “Life Imitating Art: Sex-Stereotypes in the Media”
War, Weapons, and Terrorism (Chapter 9)
• Case Study 2: “USA Patriot/Freedom Act and the War Against Terrorism”
ANSWER KEY TO CRITICAL READING QUESTIONS
John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.” Mill argues that freedom of speech and expression are essential in a
democracy if we want to avoid the “tyranny of the majority” and intellectual stagnation.
Critical Reading Questions

1. What does Mill mean by the “struggle between Liberty and Authority”? In historical times this
was the struggle between certain classes of subjects and the tyranny of the political rulers.
However, in democratic republics the authority is more the will of the people.
2. What does Mill mean by “tyranny of the majority?” The majority is the most numerous or active
part of the people who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority and who,
consequently may desire to oppress those who are not in the majority. We need protection against
the prevailing opinion by means other than civil penalties because of the tendency of society to
impose its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
3. What is the “appropriate region of human liberty”? The appropriate region of human liberty
includes the inward domain of consciousness (liberty of conscience, thought, and feeling) and
freedom of expression and publishing opinions. It also includes liberty of tastes and pursuits, of
framing the plan of our life to suit our own character and doing as we like as long as we do not
harm our fellow creatures in doing so. Finally, it includes the freedom to unite for any purpose
not involving harm to others.
4. Why is liberty of thought essential if we are to be free? Without liberty of thought we cannot
pursue our own good in our own way.
5. Why is it an evil, according to Mill, to silence the expression of an opinion? It robs the human
race, including future generations. If the opinion turns out to be right they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose the clearer perception and livelier
impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
6. How, according to Mill, do wise men acquire wisdom? A wise man acquires wisdom through the
steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion and by collating it with those of others,
including those who disagree with him.
7. What happens when a government believes it has a duty to uphold certain beliefs and oppose
others to protect the interests of society? It is often believed that only “bad” men would want to
weaken salutary beliefs and that, because of this, there is nothing wrong in restraining these men.
However, many great people have been silenced because their opinions conflicted with those of
society. Socrates, for example, was put to death by his fellow countrymen for impiety and
immorality. In this case men did not merely mistake their benefactor but mistook him for the exact
contrary of what he was.
8. How do we treat dissidents like Socrates today? Our social intolerance of dissenting opinions
induces men to disguise them or to abstain from and active effort for their diffusion. Thus,
dissenting opinions continue to smolder in narrow circles or thinking.
9. What is the danger of maintaining “all prevailing opinions outwardly undisturbed”? The price for
this sort of intellectual pacification is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind,
in which inquiring intellects find it advisable to keep the general principles and grounds of their
convictions to themselves. By doing so they narrow their thoughts and interests to what can be
spoken.
10. Why is it important to be open to challenges even to views that we assume to be true or that are
accepted doctrines? The received opinion may be false and some other opinion true; or, if the
received opinion being true, a conflict with the opposite error is essential to a clear apprehension
and deep feeling of its truths.
11. What is one of the principle reasons why diversity of opinions should be encouraged? Instead of
one opinion being true and the other false, diverse opinions, including heretical opinions, may
share the true between them and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of
the truth.
12. Why is it important, in a democracy, for opposing parties to hold divergent views? The divergent
views of the two parties in a healthy democracy derive their utility from the deficiencies of the
other. It is in great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason
and sanity.
13. Why does Mill oppose restricting freedom of speech even when it is intemperate and presented in
a nasty and offensive manner? It is impossible to fix where the supposed boundaries of temperate
speech are to be placed. Anyone who pushes hard and holds strong views is likely to be viewed as
intemperate and offensive.
Charles R. Lawrence III, “If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on
Campus.” Lawrence argues that the protection of racist speech is incompatible with the elimination of
racism. Rather than encouraging the free exchange of ideas, tolerance of hate speech silences and
devalues the ideas of minorities.
1. What does Lawrence mean by the “double consciousness” shared by minorities? Minorities value
the protection of the First Amendment because they rely on their voices to petition for redress of
grievances, but they also realize that the U.S. Constitution was not drafted to protect them.
2. According to Lawrence, who is harmed more by oppressive speech: minorities who are targets of
the speech, or those using hate speech? Minorities targeted by hate speech are the ones who are
most harmed.
3. On what grounds does Lawrence claim that many civil libertarians are actually fanning the flames
of racism? By turning the bigot into the victim
4. According to Lawrence, what is the relevance of the U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Board of
Education ruling to the regulation of racist speech? Racist hate speech, like segregation, which
was banned by the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, stamps blacks as inferior to whites.
5. Why does Lawrence insist that we view individual racist remarks as part of a totality rather than as
discrete events? Because white supremacy is not achieved by individual racist acts, but by the
institutionalization of the ideas of white supremacy.
6. Why does Lawrence reject the distinction drawn by many libertarians between conduct and
speech? By limiting the life opportunities of others, racist speech is a form of conduct.
7. On what grounds does Lawrence claim that racist speech is the functional equivalent of fighting
words? Two reasons: first, it causes an immediate harm, and second, it silences its victims and
does not promote the greatest amount of speech.
8. What three types of injury does Lawrence argue are caused by racist speech? Psychic injury,
reputational injury, and the denial of equal education opportunity.
9. Why don’t blacks have as much faith in free speech as do whites? Because the First Amendment
coexisted with slavery and blacks know that it doesn’t protect blacks as much as it protects whites.
10. According to Lawrence, what are some of the effects of racist speech on the marketplace of ideas?
Racism makes the ideas of minorities less saleable in the marketplace of ideas; it decreases the
total amount of ideas in the marketplace by silencing minorities; it promotes ideas that exclude
minorities from moral consideration.
Stanley Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too” Fish argues that
freedom of speech is not a neutral or absolute principle but is inevitably invoked for political reasons. The
value of speech in a particular situation needs to be weighed against other values.
1. What does Fish mean when he says that “abstract concepts like free speech do not have any
‘natural’ content”? He means that free speech comprises whatever content and direction one puts
into it. It merely serves the agenda we want to advance.
2. How does Milton’s story in the Areopagitica illustrate Fish’s claim that speech is never a value in
itself, but is always produced within a particular concept of the good? Rather than stipulating an
exception to the rule of free speech, the regulation of free speech is an open set that depends on
the social context and whether speech contributes to or hinders the flourishing of the very
purposes of a society.
3. According to Fish, why can’t the First Amendment be absolute? Because the term “speech” in the
First Amendment can be interpreted in different ways. There are some forms of speech that are
not really speech because their purpose is to incite violence.
4. Why is the concept of “fighting words” problematic as a criteria for censoring speech? Because
words that are seen as “fighting words” to one group will not be seen as such by another group.
Any idea is an incitement to somebody.
5. What is Fish’s position on campus speech codes? Fish believes that it may be necessary at times
to use censorship on college campuses because the freedom of expression may pose a threat to the
purpose and structure of a university.
6. On what grounds does Fish reject former Yale University President Benno Schmidt’s argument
that freedom of expression must be given priority when it collides with harmony in the academic
community? Expression occurs within the context of a community, such as an academic
community or office setting. Limitations on speech are inseparable from membership in these
communities and the purposes of these communities. Therefore, some limitations on speech are
necessary to maintain community.
7. How does Fish respond to the liberal argument that colleges should respond to harmful speech,
not with regulations, but with more speech? He says that the liberal argument would only make
logical sense if the effects of speech could be canceled out by more speech which, he argues, is not
the case.
8. What is Fish’s view on the “marketplace of ideas” defense of First Amendment freedom of
speech? The marketplace of ideas defense states that all speech should be freely tolerated since we
can never be certain if we are right or have the full truth. Therefore, censoring speech may bind
future generations to error. Fish rejects this view on the grounds that any victory for free speech
is a political victory won by those who have the power to wrap their agenda around the “mantle
of free speech.”
9. What does Fish mean when he says that freedom of speech is not a neutral principle but one
invoked for political reasons? He states that in principle there is no line between speech and
action. When put into practice, speech is not neutral but takes whatever form the current political
climate demands. Speech is always informed by the political struggles over which it presides.
Alan M. Dershowitz, “Political Correctness, Speech Codes, and Diversity.” Dershowitz examines the
motives behind the political correctness movement. He concludes that the speech codes promoted
by the political correctness movement, while claiming to promote greater diversity, in fact limit
diversity of expression.
1. According to Dershowitz, what are two of the basic tenets of the political correctness movement?
They are the demand for greater diversity and the need for speech codes.
2. What is the primary purpose of campus speech codes? Speech codes exist to protect sensitive
students from being offended by racist, sexist, and homophobic ideas, attitudes, and language. Is
this purpose, according to Dershowitz, compatible with diversity of expression? No.
3. Why does Dershowitz question the real motives of the political correctness movement? He does so
because the two basic tenets of the movement are contradictory.
4. According to Dershowitz, what is the real motive behind the demand for more diversity on college
campuses? The extreme left is merely looking to recruit and convert new members.
5. What group of people is pushing hardest for political correctness and speech codes? Members of
the extreme left are pushing hardest for this.
6. What is the effect of speech codes on political speech? Criticism of affirmative action, the rape
shield law, the illegalization of pornography, and homosexuality would all be restricted by speech
codes.
7. How does Dershowitz respond to students who defend speech codes on the grounds that certain
types of speech contribute to “bigotry, harassment and intolerance, and that it makes it difficult for
them to learn”? He charges that they want to be treated like adults when it comes to sexuality,
drinking, and schoolwork, but when it comes to combating offensive speech in the marketplace of
ideas they want to be protected like children.
8. According to Dershowitz, what has been the effect of political correctness and speech codes on
discussions and learning in the classroom? Students are reluctant to challenge the prevailing
views, to experiment with unorthodox ideas, or to make playful comments on serious subjects.
Jonathan Marks, “Embarrassing Persistence of Campus Speech Codes.” In this article, Marks
examines why speech codes, which have consistently failed legal challenges, continue to exist on
campuses today.
1. When did many colleges and universities adopt speech codes and why did they adopt them? They
adopted them in the late 1980’s to restrict racist and other discriminatory speech following
incidents of racial speech on campuses such as the University of Michigan.
2. Why did courts declare hate speech codes to be unconstitutional? They were considered too broad
and consequently unconstitutional and in violation of freedom of speech.
3. Why does Marks argue that the University of Kentucky’s speech code, like those at several other
colleges, is too broad to be useful? The code includes disciplinary action for “embarrassing a
person,” alongside offenses such as “physical assault,” “coercion,” and “threats.” Including
“embarrassment,” Marks argues, would directly affect students’ ability to engage in free and
open debate on important issues, or even to poke fun at one another.
4. Why do speech codes persist at some colleges despite their being unconstitutional? Marks
suggests that either the colleges are ignorant of the law or they are willing to risk legal challenge
and their reputations in order to appear to be on the right side of history concerning prejudice.
Traci Yoder, “Free Speech on Campus: A Critical Analysis.” Yoder examines whether unrestricted
free speech is the best way for all viewpoints to be heard on college campuses.
1. What is Vice President Pence’s position on free speech and speech codes on campus? Pence
condemns “speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political
correctness as suppression of the freedom of speech,” and extolls the virtues of civility, open
debate, the pursuit of knowledge, and the free exchange of ideas.
2. What is the Federalist Society? A legal organization founded in 1980 by law students and faculty
who felt alienated by the allegedly liberal atmosphere of many law schools. The society has been
sending reactionary speakers to college campuses for almost forty years.
3. How does the Federalist Society promote its views? It has been very successful in getting its
members into powerful positions, while keeping its influence out of public view.
4. Who are some of the most prominent members of the Federalist Society? Four current Supreme
Court justices (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch) and Vice
President Pence
5. What are some of the issues or goals it promotes? Rolling back affirmative action and identity-
based discrimination laws, contesting government regulation of the economy and environment,
removing access to legal remedies for workers and consumers, expanding state support for
religious institutions, opposing abortion, protecting private property, challenging protections for
immigrants, and limiting the size of the federal government
6. On what grounds does the Federalist Society disagree with the ACLU position that even hateful
speech is and should be constitutionally protected? The liberal free speech model does not take
into account the asymmetry of different positions and the reality of unequal power relations and
imbalances in power that exist between, for example, a wealthy white speaker with the backing of
a multi-million dollar organization and an immigrant or person of color. The “marketplace of
ideas” is like any other marketplace; those with the most resources dominate.
7. What are some of the problems with the free speech model? Some ideologies are not simply based
on logical and reasonable arguments but depend on the irrational mobilization of hate, fear, and
anger against some of the most marginalized and vulnerable populations. Offering them an open
forum and defending their right to promote harmful speech confers legitimacy on their positions
as being equally as acceptable as any other. Also, in the current marketplace conservative ideas
often get ignored. Yoder argues that what we need is a system to decide who gets to speak rather
than letting the strongest voices drown out those with less popular views.
Solution Manual for Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by Boss
QUIZZES/TESTS
The following critical reading questions are suggested for use on tests and quizzes: Mill, 2, 5, 7, 10;
Lawrence, 1, 3, 7, 10; Fish, 4, 6, 8; Dershowitz, 3, 7, 8; Marks, 2, 3, 4; Yoder, 2, 5, 6, 7.
Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

Solution Manual For Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by Boss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solution Manual For Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by Boss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solution Manual for Analyzing Moral Issues 7th by

To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

Chapter 7 - Freedom of Speech

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

MAKING THE CONNECTION

Feminism, Motherhood, and the Workplace (Chapter 6)

ANSWER KEY TO CRITICAL READING QUESTIONS

Critical Reading Questions

Boss: Analyzing Moral Issues, 7e IM-7 | 3

Boss: Analyzing Moral Issues, 7e IM-7 | 4

Boss: Analyzing Moral Issues, 7e IM-7 | 7

Chapter 7 - Freedom of Speech

Boss: Analyzing Moral Issues, 7e IM-7 | 8

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

You might also like