Article 1: Should Neo-Nazi’s be allowed Freedom of Speech (Shreejha)

Summary: Free Speech has become costlier in France and Israel. In France an Anti-Semitic
comic popular for popularizing the quenelle was banned from performing in 2 citities. And In
Israel’s parliament is working on outlawing the word “Nazi” aside from educational purposes. If
said by anyone they go to jail and have to pay a $29,000 fine. 6 European countries along with
Brazil have outlawed the use of Nazi flags and symbols. Even the US constitution has limits on
free speech when it comes to defamation, slander, and libel. A study has shown that emotional
pain and physical pain are up the same level. And that emotional pain is more traumatic and
longer lasting than physical pain. Emotional stress can cause physical sickness. Why do we
impose rules on drugs and driving under the influence of alcohol but not rules on speech and
the trauma that comes from it? Free speech should not limit common decency and should be
exercised properly.
Question Answers:
1. Why does Rosenbaum open his essay with examples from France and Israel?
a. They use France and Israel as examples because they have the highest Jewish
population aside from the US. France does not approve when people use a
symbol of Nazi’s. Israel banned the word Nazi along with its history.
2. What do you think Rosenbaum means when he says, “In pluralistic nations like theses
[six European countries and Brazil] with clashing cultures and historical tragedies not
shared by all, mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary
mental trauma” (para 6)?
a. Rosenbaum tries to state that the 6 European Countries, Brazil along with it
against discrinimation because it has gone through different tragedies including
discrimination. does apply because the US has also gone through many events
when one's religion or culture has been discriminated upon which has caused
people to suffer a lot of mental trauma. The civil war and the BLM are big
examples.
3. How does Rosenbaum classify the categories of free speech that are limited? What does
he think of these limitations? What support does he offer for his viewpoint?
a. Why does Rosenbaum open his essay with examples from France and Israel?
Rosenbaum classifies Freedom as speech as either learning from the mistakes
of the past, or to erase the mistakes of the past because it is too traumatic. He
supports the earring of its history because he brings up a study about emotional
pain and physical pain. And how emotional pain is more traumatic than physical
pain.
4. Paragraph 12, Rosenbaum gives examples of the difference between “trying to persuade
and trying to injure.” Do you find his examples compelling? Explain
a. Object to persuade is how people can support and use their freedom of speech
without violating or hurting anyone else's views or thoughts on a subject. His
examples were strong but weren also a little confusing at the beginning.

1. Finally, after hearing all of the perspectives, explain what you

gained from exploring various perspectives about freedom of
speech. Where do you stand now?
 a. I still believe that if people are given unlimited freedom of speech
many people will take advantage of it and it will hurt others. But
freedom of speech is necessary to give others the chance to voice
their opinion. People believe that freedom of speech should be
limited only to an extent, where people are still allowed to have
their own beliefs and ideas.

Article two: Sowmya Paritala

Summary: Eugene Volokh presents how people and court officials stating “this isn’t free speech,
it’s hate speech” isn’t justifiable since hate speech is not one of the types of speech that is
unprotected by the constitution. He also presents numerous court cases that show that hate
speech is not illegal. An example is the R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, where the court determined
that the City of St. Paul trying to punish specifically bigoted fighting words was unconstitutional.
The op-ed also presents the question of whether workplaces and universities are allowed to
prevent the hate speech of members. Finally Volokh states that those who do want to make
changes to the first amendment should more clearly define hate speech and the specific
changes that need to occur to the amendment.

Question Answers:
1. The purpose of the piece is to show readers that people have the right to hate speech
and that it doesn’t go against the constitution to hate against a certain religion or race.
2. Fighting words are not protected by the constitution, these are insults that are likely to
start an immediate fight, but this doesn’t cover all racially offensive statements. You are
also not protected for threats and inciting immediate crime.
3. The court cases provide support as they show the government generally seperates hate
speech to the exceptions of free speech outlined in the constitution. Showing that people
have the right to bigoted speech
4. Volkh suggests that those who want to change the first amendment should clearly
define hate speech, as hate speech covers a broad range of things like bigoted speech,
blasphemy, hating on religions and races, etc.
5. The tone of this op-ed is slightly annoyed and presents the desire of wanting to correct a
false idea. The phrases that show this annoyed tone include “I keep hearing about a
supposed “hate speech,” “Saying ‘this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech’ doesn’t, I think,
suffice.

From seeing alternative perspectives, I am able to see the justification behind different
viewpoints. I feel like I further understand the freedom of speech and how hate speech should
be dealt with. I used to think that hate speech should be considered unconstitutional, however
I now understand that this might be the best option. This is not the best option since hate
speech is not very defined as specific changes, and restricting speech makes people more
curious rather than clearly defining that the idea is wrong. Showing that hate speech is wrong
should be done through clearly defining and rebutting the ideas.
Sohil Narra - Article three: Free Speech is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech
Summary: Should we be limiting free speech because we don’t agree with something? Richard
Spencer, an alt-right leader who was openly a white supremacist was allowed onto the campus
of the Texas A&M University to openly speak about his movement, should we limit that or should
we continue to let it happen. A lot of people believe that no it should not be allowed. While this
stuff happens on chat rooms and poorly attended events, it makes it easy to believe in freedom
of speech but when it happens on campus it can be seen as an unjust cover to viewpoints that
are disgusting and unacceptable. However, calling to restrict freedom of speech could be an act
of pouring gasoline over a fire, seen in a study. Censorship can actually psychologically make a
person want to view that material more. People like Richard revel in the power of their words
and see censorship as trying to silence and exile the truth they possess. While countering hate
speech with speech is hard it may be our most effective tool. Other tactics work, such as
disinvitation and speech codes are easy ways out and often make the subject matter stronger.
We need more speech and at that it needs to be constructive not disruptive. We should be
actively helping and funding foundations that are fighting hate speech and other morally wrong
forms of speeches because they react appropriately and constructively.
Question answers:
1. How would you describe the argument that Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips make?
a. I would describe it as an argument against disrupting hate speech and more
about how to deal with it effectively and constructively. They want to help people
fight hate speech in a manner where its not just censored or avoided because
that can give the people who are being censored and avoided more power.
2. Characterize the evidence Steven and Phillips use. Do you find it convincing? Explain
your answer.
a. I would characterize their evidence as thoughtful and elaborate. I found it very
convincing. They were thoughtful and elaborate because they truly wanted to
stop hate speech and you can see it in their tone of voice. They looked at the
psychological effects and methods of countering hate speech. That's also why it
was so convincing, because they had appropriate evidence and reasoning.
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 argument?
a. They believe that it is more harmful to censor hate speech because it can give a
sense of power to that hate speech, it can be seen by the people being censored
as an attempt to silence truth in their statements. On top of that it can make
people want to see that kind of stuff more just because we aren’t meant to look at
it. Basically the logic is that censoring is an easy way out and it doesn’t stop hate
speech if anything it empowers it and gives it more of an audience.
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. They make the suggestion that people should be constructive against hate
speech and not just simply censor it because that can give it more power, that’s
 why we need to actively combat hate speech with clear constructive arguments. I
do believe that these suggestions are practical because it can lead to persuasion
against hate speech and can actively stop it. Censoring hate speech will
technically stop it but it will give it more power and publicity. These ultimately
prove more effective because it stops hate speech, it doesn't just hide it. A good
example was Trump's ban on twitter. While it did censor his speech on the
platform it almost in a sense rallied his supporters even more.
My stance on freedom of speech: It needs to be protected and supported. People should have
the ability to convey their thoughts however they want. We should also actively argue/debate
over things we don’t agree with to stop hate speech and other things like that. Censoring
speech and doing other things like that can empower it, we should counteract with more
speech.

Article 4- TEYA SNOWDER

1. What aspects of human nature does Lata Nott hold responsible for the ways the
First Amendment is misinterpreted
Lata Nott explains in her writings that the human’s natural urge is to express your
opinion as if it were law and then try to get rid of all opposing viewpoints. This can easily
lead to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment because it makes it seem ok to only
let the ‘right’ opinion be expressed instead of all opinions in a form of market place as so
she speaks.
2. What point does Nott make in paragraph 5 when she discusses partisan media?
How does this point contribute to her overall argument?
Partisan media refers to the practice of people only reading or following articles or
accounts that share their same views because people don’t like to see when others
contradict their views. This contributes to her argument because it shows another way
that people are oppressing other views in an attempt to further justify their own. It makes
the point that since the First Amendment isn’t going to censor others' opinions then
people feel that they have to do it themselves, this is counterproductive to the goal of the
amendment in the first place to encourage a pool of ideas and opinions.
3. How does Nott use rhetorical questions to develop her argument?
Nott’s choice to use rhetorical questions such as “What benefit do we actually derive
from [hate speech]” opens the mind of the reader to deeper thought. This makes the
reader think deeper about their own view on this topic and it can possibly lead them to
further questions and new ideas or answers.
4. Why does Nott believe we all need to stand up for the First Amendment even if we
don’t “love” it
Nott argues that everyone should stand up for the First Amendment no matter whether
they “love” it because it encourages a pool of differing ideas in hope that the best one
reigns victorious. Even if you don’t support the thoughts expressed by others, freedom of
speech will definitely be important to you when you're put in their position and you have
to argue against popular opinion. Pretty much the main idea is that by protecting others
rights of speech is protecting your own as well.
 5. Finally, after hearing all of the perspectives, explain what you gained from
exploring various perspectives about freedom of speech. Where do you stand
now?
After exploring all these perspectives for freedom of speech I’d say I gained a deeper
opinion in support for the first amendment. I liked learning about the positive and
negatives outcomes of the examples in other countries where they restricted people’s
speech about certain topics such as Nazi propganda. I also liked to see all of the studies
done in support of the First Amendment such as in article 1 when they talk about
emotional and physical pain.

Article 5- Yasvi Patel

1. The way she classifies them is by calling a situation up which she has experienced, by
herself, and making it an example to make people understand that.

​ . He consider it an equity issues because, some speeches are not focusing on that,
2
And that is creating an unfair disparity between and amongst the groups and among the
groups,and sometimes there are some inapplicable words, and can lead to various negative
consequences.
3. There are so many viewpoints, where one is just giving a speech of what she feels or has
experienced and making it a valid point, where one is focusing on , what wrong can happen
through that speech, what differences it can make and what areas it can affect.
4. Just acknowledging the fact that can really trigger the audience who is reading it, and the way
she is refusing it is by, that people are taking a disadvantage , by using something inappropriate,
and making it a speech.
Overall,after hearing it I will say that just use free speech as a good place to make fair and aa
open place of opinions without any judgements and characterizations, and hearing it from an
open mind, and try to understand the perspective.
‘Article’ 6 - Tanner
1. Summary: The political cartoon listed depicts Uncle Sam holding an umbrella labeled
with “FREE SPEECH” above a group of very unique people, each representing their
respective stereotype. Each of these people is pointing at the others and stating, “Can
you just move it so it doesn’t cover them?” This political cartoon is representative of the
fact that each person and group wants their side and voice to be heard, but wants the
opposite for their opposition.
1. Why is Uncle Sam holding the Free Speech umbrella?
a. In the cartoon, an umbrella labelled with “FREE SPEECH” is depicted as being
held up by Uncle Sam. This is utilized to symbolize the First Amendment. This
Amendment guarantees freedom of speech to all citizens, and is upheld by the
Constitution. Therefore, Uncle Sam is depicted holding the Free Speech umbrella
to symbolize the United States giving freedom of speech to all.
2. Look carefully at the people underneath the umbrella. Who are they? What does each
represent? To what extent is Wilkinson suggesting these people exist on even moral
footing?
 a. The people underneath the umbrella each symbolize a different group of
Americans. To mention a few, there appears to be a pastor, a hippie, a
businessman, a queer individual, and a middle eastern man. Each represents
their respective stereotype, and thus the group of people that most closely
matches that stereotype.
b. Equal moral footing is defined as “conditions where everyone has an equal
chance.” Wilkinson is suggesting these people exist on even moral footing
because they all have equal protection of their First Amendment, free speech.
3. What is the message of Wilkinson’s cartoon? Do you think she is in favor of limiting free
speech? Explain your answer
a. The primary message from Wilkinson’s cartoon is that each person and group of
people want their side and voice to be heard, but want the opposite for their
opposition. However, at the end of the day, we are all given equal protection of
our free speech.
b. I do not believe that Wilkinson is in favor of limiting free speech. Rather, I think
that she is trying to point out the faults with our society. We are each protected by
free speech and feel that we deserve it, but don’t want our opposition to have it.
We want to spread our opinions, but want to suppress the other side.
4. Reflection
a. This exploration of various perspectives about freedom of speech has been
insightful, however I don’t believe that it has changed where I stand on the issue.
The truth is that freedom of speech is extremely complicated. In order to protect
against an oppressive society, we must ensure that everyone has free speech.
However, at the same time, we must ensure that this society is a safe one, which
means that we have to suppress certain viewpoints that may be dangerous.
Deciding where to draw this line, between freedom and safety, is an ongoing
issue, and there is not a clear answer. Personally, I feel that we should edge on
the side of too much censorship rather than not enough censorship, as
uninformed and dangerous opinions lead to a convoluted society.