Ben Bethers

Group Members: Ava, Claire, Bodacious, Sky, Braxton

McKay Period 4
IB English
13 October 2021

Free Speech Articles Questions

Article One: “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” By Thane Rosenbaum (Ben)

1. Thane opens his article with examples of France and Israel limiting freedom of speech to
offer a comparison between the democratic countries in Europe to the democracy we
have in the United States. In doing this, he shows the reader how the countries in Europe
have different laws on freedom of speech that can limit harmful speech because they have
legitimate experience and fear of such words. In comparison, America has less restrictive
laws regarding freedom of speech and generally allows more potentially destructive
verbal occurrences.
2. I feel that when Thane said this, he meant that separate countries have different historical
experiences and social issues from other countries, and therefore may react to social
issues in a different way from other countries. I feel like this applies to the United States,
we may not have as strong of a reaction to neo-Nazis in our country because we never
experienced invasions and concentration camps for Jews on our own soil. However, we
may react strongly to racial issues because of slavery and past and present racial tension.
3. In the article, Rosenbaum classifies free speech as either something that is meant to
inform and persuade or something that is intended to harm. Under the speech that is
meant to harm, he names several forms of speech such as slander, defamation, hate
crimes, fighting words, and more. In regards to this speech, he thinks that these can offer
as much harm as physical violence does. In fact, he offers several studies from notable
colleges saying that emotional damage such as insults or social exclusion can cause more
lasting and just as painful damage as physical harm.
4. Rosenbaum expresses an opinion that America’s legislature and judiciary should outlaw
speech that is intended to harm. I find his opinion and evidence compelling, he uses
examples of how neo-Nazis would march in a town that has a higher population than
other towns. He uses this as an example to explain that such words and actions should be
outlawed because they can be detrimental to emotional health because they are explicitly
meant to harm a specific group. This is compelling evidence because it explains how free
speech that simply seeks to persuade is effective, and we can simply use this speech
effectively and avoid using the speech that is explicitly meant to harm people.
Article Two (Ava):

1. The point of Volokh’s piece is that hate speech is protected by the first amendment, and
that the word “hate speech” isn’t necessarily reliable because it has not been defined by
law yet.
2. According to Volokh, fighting words and Bigotry are not protected by the first
amendment.
3. The purpose of the court cases is to prove how many times people have gone to court to
fight the first amendment to get it changed, and how many times it has failed or not really
gone anywhere. I feel like these were not very effective, because it was more of a list than
anything else and the reader is just going to skip through them. If he had put them as a list
after the article as references for people to research more on it would have made it more
effective than a list in the middle of the article.
4. Volokh says for those that want to change the first amendment need to come up with a
better reasoning than just hate speech. He says to come up with better reasoning, because
there is not a definition for hate speech determined or official in the law. He also says
this, because they need more reasoning and evidence than just that they do not like it
because it is not enough information alone to change an amendment.
5. I would characterize the tone as educational yet argumentative. Because we see where he
makes the list of all the court cases, which is very educational and supports his argument,
Not only that, but we do see him use a rebuttal in one of the last paragraphs which
supports his side and shows more on how the other side to the argument can be proved
wrong.

Article Three: “Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech” by Sean
Stevens and Nick Phillips (Claire)

1. How would you describe the argument that Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips make?
a. Stevens and Phillips are creating an argument that supports the right to free
speech, even when topics are inaccurate and vulgar. The argument that was made
was to advocate for other sources that are against racism, instead of gaslighting
the opinions of racists. This argument is respectful by still respecting Spencer’s
right to free speech, even when the author’s believe that his opinion is
unacceptable.
2. Characterize the evidence Stevens and Phillips use. Do you find it convincing? Explain
your answer.
a. The evidence that is used in this article is unique because of the way that it gives
examples of actions that the authors believe should be taken. I find the evidence
convincing because it allows you to not only think about their perspective, but the
 authors give sources that are available to be used for changing to problems that
are related to the issue of free speech even if the words are hateful.
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 because it
can draw attention to the hateful argument, giving more attraction to a topic that
should not be discussed. The logic behind this is to avoid conflict within the
different opinions, by still allowing everyone to speak freely while avoiding
contention or undeserved popularity.
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. Stevens and Phillips give the suggestion of donating to programs that fight against
racism and those groups that support colored people against being discriminated
against. The suggestion of organization is practical because it still allows those
against hate speech to support their beliefs, in a peaceful and effective way. I
think that these organizations would be successful, but would be unable to
completely abolish hate speech or racist thoughts and actions. For example, the
Civil Rights Act was passed several years ago, but there are still racists in today’s
world and those thoughts still linger in the minds of many Americans, although
they are the minority.
5. Where do I stand now?
a. I have always been very neutral on the topic of free speech because I have never
had a great understanding on the meaning. However, after discussing and reading
the articles I have seen how important free speech is in each American’s freedom.
Free speech is important to be protected because it is a right that is given under
the Constitution and should not be obliged, even in tough circumstances. I have
learned that there will always be opinions that may be unethical or unreasonable,
but taking away the right can attract attention to topics that should not be
discussed. I have learned that if we disagree with others’ opinions, it is important
to respect their right, but not be afraid to act upon being an activist in helping
organizations or minority groups in being represented in these situations.

Article Four: “Free speech isn’t always valuable. That's not the point.” by Lata Nott

1. What aspects of human nature does Lata Nott hold responsible for the ways the first
amendment is misinterpreted?
a. She holds the human nature of greed responsible for the misinterpretation of the
first amendment with the idea that everyone wants to take your right to free
 speech if they don't agree on it which is a thing that every human faces, the idea
that they don't like the opinion of you therefore they want your opinion to be
silenced
2. What point does Nott make in paragraph 5 when she discusses partisan media? How does
this affect her overall argument
a. It creates a dramatic side to her argument saying what if people could say
whatever they want with advertising and sell you bad furi or candy with lead in it
and this creates an idea in the reader's head, that speaks of a more literal take on
the right to free speech which is free speech to the truest degree.
3. How does Nott use rhetorical questions to develop her argument
a. She uses rhetorical questions for her argument as to create an idea of what you
would do in said situation and that allows you to form your own opinions and if
your’s align with hers then you further read on to see more and if they don't work
with yours then you still read on as to prove her wrong almost like a way to trap
you into the reading.
4. Why does Nott believe we should stand up for the first amendment even if we don’t
“love” it
a. Because the first amendment whilst protecting hate also allows freedoms so she
sees it as a necessary evil to create a more open minded society and to create an
overall better society from it.

Article Five: The Case For Restricting Hate Speech (Sky)

1. Laura Beth Nielson’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?

The targets of unlimited free speech that she describes are racism and sexism. The groups
who are “protected from troubling speech” are soldier’s families, workers, and shoppers,
but women and people of color are not. She shows a sophisticated comparison between
the groups and their protection and impact of hate speech through examples. This
demonstrates how hate speech is dangerous, and words can make a huge impact and that
it should be viewed that way.

2. Why does Nielson consider unlimited free speech to be an equity issue - that is, an issue
that creates an unfair disparity between and among groups of people?

Nielson considers unlimited free speech to be an equity issue, because the limits that are
placed, and the limits that are not placed describe groups less worthy of protection under
the government. To elaborate, it is like determining who deserves what, women and
people of color do not deserve protection from hate speech, but soldier’s families,
 workers and shoppers do. This is a huge issue because hate speech promotes the idea of
inequality, and elitism, that people of color and women are below others.

3. How does Nielson define harm in the context of her argument? How does this definition
relate to how she develops her position?

Nielson defines harm in the context of her argument by describing how hate speech can
impact someone more than someone may think or understand. Nielson provides how
“Exposure to racial slurs diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to
sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objection…” This describes the
true extent of hate speech and why these groups should be protected.

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

Nielsen acknowledges the counterargument by describing how people say “it is just
speech, it is just words.” She refutes this by talking about the effects of it and how
dangerous it can truly be and how it takes away others’ rights.

Article Six: “Free Speech” by Signe Wilkinson (Braxton)

1. Why is Uncle Sam holding the free speech umbrella?

● Uncle Sam is a common symbol of America. One of the keys that America was
founded on is freedom of speech. I believe that Uncle Sam holding it is
representative of the U.S. Constitution and how it is supposed to cover all
citizens.
2. Look carefully at the people under the umbrella. Who are they? What does each
represent? To what extent is Wilkinson suggesting these people exist on even moral
footing?
● These people are all citizens of America that are meant to symbolize a group of
people. Each of the people have a trait that tells you what group of people they
represent. She is suggesting that each of them fall under the umbrella of free
speech and that they all have the same rights to free speech.
3. What is the message of Wilkinson's cartoon? Do you think she is in favor of limiting free
speech?
● Wilkinson’s message is that groups of people today only want freedom of speech
to apply to themselves and those who share similar viewpoints with them. Many
people when they see someone saying something they don't agree with believe
that freedom of speech does not apply in those situations. In this cartoon, all the
people appear to be pointing at their opposites/those who have the most differing
viewpoints. Judging by the exasperation on Uncle Sam’s face I believe that
Wilkinson supports freedom of speech for all groups and doesnt think that one
group should be able to take that away from another.