1.

Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech

Summary: Free speech should be more limited. The distinctly US focus on physical harm for free speech
is not supported by what actually happens. The US already has some limits on free speech, and multiple
laws designed to prevent harm before it happens. There are always ways to express your viewpoint
without harming others.
1. The author cites France and Israel as examples of countries with less free speech protections.
They have laws that penalize certain types of speech, and most Americans don't see them as
“authoritarian” or “fascist”.
2. Rosenbaum is saying that these countries avoid tension between their diverse population by
requiring civility in speech. America could fit the definition, but there really is no requirement for
respect. Just don't lie and don’t say anything that could cause physical harm.
3. Rosenbaum categorizes the limits on free speech as not protecting the speaker when the speech
could threaten public welfare. He believes that the first amendment should also be restricted when
the speech causes harm that is not physical.
4. The examples don't really say how you should express yourself without causing harm. The
examples are effective in persuading that some things should not get first amendment protection.

2. No, There’s No “Hate Scpeech” Exception to the First Amendment (Amber Parker)
Summary: Hate speech is just as protected under the First Amendment as any other kind of
speech. Some exceptions in the first amendment include “fighting words”, but hate speech isn't exactly
the same. Libel is also an exception to free speech, saying that exposing racial or religious groups to
hatred is not permitted (unless good intent can be proven). Hostile environment harassment is also
restricted. However, none of these terms are defined as “hate speech” (although some forms of hate
speech may be restricted under these laws, not all of it is). It is hard to restrict something as undefined as
“hate speech”.

1. The purpose of this article is to show readers that hate speech isn't restricted in the First
Amendment. Certain aspects of it are restricted, but the definition is too broad to restrict
everything.
2. Fighting words, threats, libel, and workplace harassment are not protected under the First
Amendment.
3. The court cases show the Supreme Courts rulings on certain aspects and instances that could be
considered hate speech. In some of the cases, an individual’s right to free speech was restricted
because it fell under one of the categories above. However, in other cases, the speech (although it
could be considered “hate speech” is not restricted. The cases are effective in showing where the
lines are drawn.
4. He says that in order to restrict the right to free speech, what you are restricting must be clearly
defined. He says that the term “hate speech” is undefined and too broad to make any effective
rulings with. One must define what is protected and what is restricted under that definition, and
how to distinguish between those. Overall, he suggests being more specific in the definitions.
5. I would say that his tone is analytical and sort of critical, kind of like someone analyzing a choice
a person made and suggesting (with care) how to fix what they did. He starts off by saying that
 the assumption that “hate speech” is restricted under the First Amendment is wrong, then explains
why this is, then suggests what to do in order to get “hate speech” restricted.

3. Free Speech is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech (Avyrlie Smith)
- How would you describe the argument that Sean Stevens and Nick Philips make?
Their argument is that by limiting or banning hate speech, we are only making the speech become more
popular by increasing people’s desire to read it and threatening people with similar viewpoints. Instead it
is more effective to acknowledge the opposing side, and then give arguments against it. By doing this you
limit support for the opposing viewpoint while also strengthening your argument.
- Characterize the evidence Stevens and Philips use. Do you find it convincing? Explain your
answer.
One piece of evidence provided was a study done by Worchel and colleagues to see people’s desire to see
and hear about restricted content. The data from this experiment aligned with their argument as the
students became more interested in what the content was that they could not hear. There is also another
study (Silvia 2005) that had a similar conclusion which was, when people feel their freedom to hear the
content is limited, they express a greater desire to find out what the content is. This evidence is
convincing because there are 2 separate and reliable studies with the same argument.
- Why do Stevens and Philips believe that censoring hate speech is more harmful than allowing it-
that is, what is the logic behind their central argument?
They believe that limiting hate speech causes it to become more popular and spikes the interest of the
audience. It can also cause people with similar viewpoints of hate speech to act out violently as they feel
their freedom of speech is being threatened.
- What suggestions do they make for combating hate speech without putting limits on it? Do you
think those suggestions are practical and would prove successful? Explain.
Their argument for combating hate speech is to engage in the other side and allow more speech and more
discussion. This can allow all groups to feel heard and new compromises to form. Engagement should be
constructive towards the other side and provide concrete evidence to disprove the other side instead of
simply trying to silence it. I think this suggestion is practical and would prove successful because people
do not like to feel like they cannot speak their mind. Allowing them to speak freely opens a new
discussion on the topic and ultimately allows both groups to grow their perspectives.

4. Free speech is not always valuable. That’s not the point(grace hansen)
Summary: The author talks about how people say that they love the idea of free speech but get mad at
other people's ideas. She mentions that we need to acknowledge that we need it. Everyone has the same
rights and you are also saying you love the rights of others who say something that you don’t agree with
and it should be counted as a term no matter how loosely it is defined.
1. What aspects of human nature does Lata Nott hold responsible for the ways the first amendment
is misinterpreted? Some of the aspects are wanting to always be right and to argue with someone
who does not agree with our points of view. Another way is that we put blame on others for what
the point of view is that is considered wrong. We have little tolerance for someone who does not
agree with you because you always want to be right.
 2. What point does she make in paragraph 5 when she discusses partisan media? How does the
point contribute to the overall argument? The argument that she makes is about how the media
plays a role in how people react and what they choose to listen to. She points to speech as a
marketplace where all the ideas should be able to compete for what idea is better than the rest.
The media is hard to understand the truth from the lies because everyone shows their own
arguments and some people then believe one person’s ideas and start to tell why the other side is
wrong.
3. How does Nott use rhetorical questions to develop her argument? She uses questions like a
protester burning down the American flag and why a college professor says that hitler was onto
something. This makes the reader question that thought and makes it so then they start to think
about what is protected under the first amendment and why people don’t “love” the amendment
because you are still protecting their right to say or do such an act.
4. Why does she believe we all need to stand up for the first amendment even if we don’t “love it”.
She says that we need to stand up for the first amendment because it is needed and necessary. She
says it mentions two things, one being that the right to speak already is far from absolute and they
are asking disadvantaged members of society to shoulder heavy burdens instead of speaking of
what they need to say. If there is no freedom of speech then more people will suffer.

5. The Case for Restricting Free Speech by Laura Beth Nielson

1. The author classifies the people who are the targets of unlimited free speech as people who have
been previously oppressed, such as people of color, the LGBTQ community, and women. The
author classifies the people who are protected from hate speech as the powerful and wealthy. The
author says that these people are shielded from harmful and hateful speech.
2. The author thinks that free speech is an equity issue for a few reasons. First, the targets of hate
speech are most often minorities or oppressed people, and hate speech negatively affects these
communities. This creates a disparity between these people and the rich and powerful who are
protected from hate speech.
3. In the context of her argument, the author defines harm as something deeper than just an
emotional scratch, and that what may appear only as something that would only hurt the feelings
of a person, can create larger problems such as mental disorders.
4. The author acknowledges the counterargument that protecting hate speech is consistent with our
founding principles, and protecting all forms of speech is consistent with the tradition of the
United States. She refutes this by pointing out that true freedom of speech has never existed in the
U.S., and that there have always been limitations on speech in America.

6. Free Speech Cartoon by Signe Wilkinson (Evynn DeHaan)

Summary: Uncle Sam is wearing a patriotic outfit holding up an umbrella with the caption, “Free
Speech.” He is holding the umbrella over a variety of different people that appear to have different
backgrounds, values, and ideas. There are 5 people on each side of Uncle Sam and there is a caption
saying “Can you just move it… So it doesn’t cover them?” The idea behind this is that people want
themselves to be protected by free speech but perhaps when it comes to the other side of the aisle or
someone who thinks differently than you do, they should not be protected by the free speech umbrella.
1. Why is Uncle Sam holding the Free Speech Umbrella?
- Uncle Sam is considereed to be the United States government in a “person” form, Uncle Sam is
providing the people their right and freedom to free speech. Or in other words, the government is
providing people their right to free speech. Which in a sense is correct, the United States
government has free speech in the first amendment, showing the importance, but by Uncle Sam’s
facial expression it shows he can no longer continue to keep both sides of the aisle happy.
2. Look carefully at the people under the umbrella. Who are they? What does each represent? To
what extent is Wilkinson suggesting these peple exist on even moral footing?
- Each person under the umbrella appears to be advocating for a different cause and each person is
passionate about something specific. There is someone wearing a cross around their neck
showing the value of religion, there is someone with a peace sign as a necklace showing the want
and admiration to restore world peace, and there is someone with a rainbow on their shirt perhaps
showing respect, love, and representation of the LGBTQ+ community. With everyone on an even
ground, it demonstrates that in a way everyone has the same purpose and want, everyone wants
the equal opportunity to voice their opinions and ideas through free speech. No one is valued
more because their issue is valued more.
3. What is the message of Wilkinson’s cartoon? Do you think she is in favor of free speech? Explain
your answer.
- The message behind Wilkinson’s cartoon is to illustrate the high demand of free speech in today’s
modern society. Wilkinson is trying to portray the idea that there are millions of different things to
advocate, want, need, or to express and everyone is protected through the first amendment right
of free speech, provided through the government. I think Wilkinson is in favor of free speech
because of the different culture she provided in the cartoon. I think she thinks that everyone’s
voice should be heard regardless of what you believe, everyone should have that same
opportunity. However, those who are voicing their opinions and are advocating, do not want the
same opportunity for those who oppose or disagree. Having free speech cover their side and
ideas, but not their opposers or those who have different priorities.