The Limits of Free Speech

Conversation

Instructions: Assign each group member a different text (please type the name of each person next to
their article). Next, read the text individually and answer the questions. Once everyone is finished, share a
summary of the article with your group and explain your answers. Once you have heard all of the
perspectives, answer the final question.

1.Thane Rosenbaum / Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech? (Sophia Lin)

1. He opens his essay with examples from France and Israel to give real world comparisons of the
freedom of speech in the United States and in other countries. It gives a background and
comparison that starts to idea of the whole essay because it shows how some types of speech
are not tolerated in other countries, while in the U.S. the right to free speech has clouded
judgements. Their free speech laws are different because especially after a large event like
World War 2, the Naxi regime is a major trigger for many people so in France it was banned.
This means that they have freedom of speech but it is limited when the topic is a sensitive and
major topic. In the U.S. while frowned upon, speech isn’t limited and people are allowed to say
whatever they want. People don’t think of the consequences and say it is the freedom of the
people’s speech.
2. Rosenbaum means that in these nations although they have freedom of speech, they don’t have
complete freedom. There are limitations that respect different groups of people from mental
abuse, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. It also means that although the countries are very
different, they all respect and make laws to limit the speech to maintain peace and respect
through all different people. This description doesn’t apply to the United States because
although we have the freedom of speech, the government doesn’t censor and communities also
don’t censor to control what people say that may harm others. The government doesn’t limit
speech in the U.S. and this means although frowned upon, people are allowed to be racist,
antisemetic, and homophobic which harms other groups of people.
3. Rosenbaum classifies the categories of free speech that are limited to mentally harmful and
abusive. He thinks that these limitations are effective and a positive limitation in comparison to
how the United States is too free and since it has no limitations leads to problems of common
decency. People have lost common decency in society and people don’t think before they talk.
He supports his viewpoint using scientific evidence on how words affect people mentally and
physically just as much as an injury does. He also gives examples from multiple countries
where they limit speech that is offensive to people.
4. His examples are compelling because they show how the freedom of speech can end with
deaths and mental injury as well as physical injury. He speaks about how although society will
look down upon specific speech, that doesn’t mean that they stop it, so this will affect people
mentally to points where they want to end their own lives, end other lives, use methods to
numb their pain, and then end up having their thoughts and behaviors inhibited and affected.
This means that their inhibitions are affected so they may make mistakes or for example drive
 and end up killing or injuring themselves and others.
Final Question: Reflect on what you gained from this experience and how your opinion was solidified,
changed, or shaped by it?
I gained multiple different viewpoints on how and if the freedom of speech should be limited in
America and how it was limited in other countries. I gained the information that other countries have
limited and censored specific topics like homophobia, racism, anti-semtism, etc. I think that the
freedom of speech shouldn’t be taken away, but people need to understand what is exceptable to talk
about especially with situations such as homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, and other sensitive topics
that affect people on emotional, mental, and physical levels.

2. Eugene Volokh / No, There’s No “Hate Speech” Exception to the First Amendment
(Maya Barnes)
1. To inform the readers that hate speech is protected under the first amendment.
2. “Fighting words” and true threats of illegal conduct
3. They serve to show how the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment right and how
its changed on a case by case basis.
4. Those who wish to make changes, must specify the changes they want.
5. The author has a very informative and argumentative tone.

Final Question: Reflect on what you gained from this experience and how your opinion was solidified,
changed, or shaped by it?
I gained new information after reading Eugene Volokh. At first I believed that hate speech wasn’t
protected under the first amendment and my opinion has now changed.

3. Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips / Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech
(Nayantara Nair)
1. Their argument is effectively “most speech should be allowed because, regardless of its content,
restricting speech only makes people want to hear that point of view. However, allowing that speech to
exist allows society to determine how they will react to it.
2. The experiment’s procedure was not super error-free because the way that they gathered data could
have easily been skewed. However, their conclusions make sense: Students who had information
presented and then restricted had more curiosity about that information, regardless of context.
3. Stevens and Phillip believe that censoring free speech is more harmful than allowing it because of
the human resistance to censorship. Or rather, the human desire to see that which has been censored.
They conducted an experiment with students where one group, the control group, were told that the
recorder had a speech on tape that they would soon listen to. Then, the variance group was told that due
to opposed reactions from other students, they would not be able to listen to the tape. The students who
faced this opposition showed an increased desire to hear the speech than the control group. Later, they
emphasized the idea that freedom of speech, even negative speech, can create social change and unity.
4. Suggestions:
- Donating to counter-causes
- Attending free speech talks
- Discussing free speech
- Creating movements against hate-speech rather than censoring it
These suggestions are practical, at least, more practical than censoring the hate speech. It allows the
speaker to make their point, but then you can fight back with your point.

Final Question: Reflect on what you gained from this experience and how your opinion was solidified,
changed, or shaped by it?
I think it’s really easy for individuals to assume that a platform or a government is “unjust” because it
allows freedom of speech, even when that speech is harmful. However, I also think it is more beneficial
to take advantage of your own freedom of speech to debate theirs than to feel the “unfairness” of their
rights. For instance, in the article, the students who listened to the racist speaker were then able to
protest his endeavors, rather than blindly claiming that he should be deplatformed. Also, seeing all the
differing viewpoints between the articles is actually more helpful for forming an opinion. I am of the
opinion that you should not restrict information just because you disagree with it. I think that the only
information that should result in punishment are direct threats and purposeful misinformation.

4. Lata Nott / Free Speech Isn’t Always Valuable. That’s Not the Point. Maryam Bassaid

1. Certain media platforms are one one side of the spectrum than the other.
2. She makes the point that specific media platforms and news platforms tend to agree with and favor
one political party over the other and it goes to brainwash people into thinking certain things and she
says it is very dangerous because then we lose the sense of free thought.
3. She uses rhetorical questions to propose the idea that we should work together to protect our free
speech and she was giving examples that we can relate with to show that free speech is also
hypocritical in a way, because we misuse it a lot like for example she gives an example of how a person
technically has the right to stand outside a military funeral and say “thank god that military person
died”.
4. It is essential because we need to stand together and make sure we are heard in case one day the
government turns on us and we need to speak about it to solve the issues. We are very fortunate as
Americans to have free speech so that we can express our disagreements and agreements. For example
in Iran women are not allowed to express that they want the right to wear or not wear a hijab.
Final Question: Reflect on what you gained from this experience and how your opinion was solidified,
changed, or shaped by it?
It was really interesting to see the danger of freespech, because yes it definitely is essential but at the
same time if it is overused and misused it can hurt/brainwash many people. I also found it interesting
how she was arguing at first that we love free speech but at the end she turned it to say that we don't
love it but we need it.

5. Laura Beth Nielsen / The Case for Restricting Hate Speech (Jonathan Talbot)

1. She describes it as people who are powerful and popular. Suggested groups that may be more
popular with the government such as the military. This also includes shoppers and workers because
they run our economy. While women and racial minorities are not seen as popular and so they are not
protected. She classifies it as the people who the government sees as necessary.

2. She believes that free speech is not fair because speech can be used to harm groups but it also can be
used to protect groups with popularity and power.
3. She explains how hate speech is not just speech. It can lead to poor physical and mental health. It can
also have long lasting effects.

4. She acknowledges the counter argument by saying how some people claim that hate speech is not
necessarily harmful. She argues that it does harm people and that exposure to hate speech lowers
cognitive ability and increases mental health strain and harm. She explicitly says, “They will trivialize
the harms that… research undeniably associates with being the target of hate speech” (Pg. 10).

Final Question: Reflect on what you gained from this experience and how your opinion was solidified,
changed, or shaped by it?
I gained a better understanding of the actual effect of what happens to people when they are the target
of hateful and hurtful speech. My opinion was solidified and not changed. I understood that there was
harm to the people catcalled and who were experiencing hate speech.

6. Signe Wilkinson / Free Speech (cartoon) jade and joel

1. Uncle Sam is holding the Umbrella to represent how the United States protects everyone.
2. They are a group of people of different backgrounds and opinions that have a dislike for the
other, and want the umbrella to be moved so that there are some people that aren’t protected
under the free speech umbrella. Wilkson is suggesting that these people are on even moral
footing as everyone wants the umbrella to be moved.
3. Wilkinson is not in favor of limiting free speech. She depicts this by showing that Uncle Sam
looks a little bit upset with how people are asking to move the umbrella, and he will not move
the umbrella either.
Final Question: Reflect on what you gained from this experience and how your opinion was solidified,
changed, or shaped by it?
This just solidified my view points of how free speech should be limited when it presents clear danger
or is threatening and how free speech should protect every group equally no matter what.