** I was gone to take the PSAT

Articles:

Thane Rosenbaum- Should Neo-Nazis be allowed Free Speech?

1) Why does Thane Rosenbaum open his essay with examples from Spain and Israel?
In what ways are their free speech laws different from those of the United States?

He opens his essay with examples from Spain and Israel to introduce the
controversial topic of free speech with different perspectives. Since his audience
was mostly American, he wanted to introduce a different way of thinking for his
audience to fully consider many sides of the free speech controversy. Their free
speech laws are very different from those of the United States in that they do not
tolerate hate speech or expression of extreme thoughts and opinions. They do not
tolerate Nazi beliefs and opinions, while the U.S. tolerates them unless they
infringe on the others’ freedoms.

2) What do you think Rosenbaum means when he says, “In pluralistic nations like
these [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”. Do you think that description can apply to the
United States?”

I think that Rosenbaum means that when many different people and cultures
coexist, people have to be kind in order to not dominate or oppress each other.
Sometimes, when two cultures mix, one group will dominate the other based on the
distribution of power. This can create mental trauma for the oppressed group
(examples: Nazis and Jews, Europeans and American Natives, etc. ). Mutual respect
and civility can keep the peace and really does work to help different people
coexist. This description can definitely apply to the United States. In the United
States, people from all over the world coexist. Many are respectful to each other,
though there are some tensions. If all of the cultures would just respect and be civil
to each other, there would be very little civil unrest.

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 views?

He classifies them as libel, slander, defamation, obscenity, fighting words, and

incitement of imminent lawlessness. He agrees with this to an extent, but believes
that if we place limits on speech, we ‘privilege physical over emotional harm’. He
supports his beliefs by explaining how the brain processes pain and how much
 more damaging emotional pain can be. He does acknowledge ambiguity about
intentions vs. actual damage that speech can cause. He clearly states in the last
paragraph that no speech should cause an impediment to civil society or harm a
person significantly in any way, but he believes that limiting speech too much does
not give emotional pain that gravity it deserves.

4) In paragraph 12, Rosenbaum gives examples of the difference between “trying to

persuade and trying to injure”. Do you find his examples compelling? Explain your
answer.

I do find his examples compelling. They are widely known examples (like
Neo-Nazis), and they prove his points well. The most compelling example was “one
can object to gays in the military without ruining the one moment a father has to
bury his son”. This was especially compelling because it vividly depicted how
someone can disagree respectfully.

Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips- Free Speech is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate
Speech

1) How would you describe the argument that Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips make?

I would describe the argument that Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips make as
reluctantly supporting the first amendment. They clearly do not approve of people
expressing hateful, racist, or xenophobic opinions in any situation, but wish to
protect the first amendment regardless. They say that though the opinions are
despicable, banning the behavior would actually increase it. Instead, they believe
that donating to a counter cause or protesting is better, even if it is harder than
simply banning it.

2) Characterize the evidence Stevens and Phillips use. Do you find it convincing?
Explain your answer.

The evidence they use are numerous studies, research, and examples (such as
Richard Spencer’s white supremacist speeches and the John Birch Society) to make
their point. They also used an example that proves their solutions work: the
psychology department at A & M University launched a protest against Richard
Spencer instead of censoring his ideas. I find it very convincing because it proves
that the solutions Stevens and Phillips suggest work. The studies and research give
credibility to their argument, which makes it especially compelling.
 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?

They believe that censoring hate speech is more harmful than allowing it is that
censoring something makes people more likely to do it. It strengthens ingroup
relations while ostracizing them from outgroups, and makes them more devoted to
the ‘banned material’. Also, Stevens and Phillips argue that people are more
inclined to explore banned or censored content.

4) What suggestions do they have for combating hate speech without putting limits
on it? Do you think those suggestions are practical? Do you think they would
ultimately be successful? Explain your response, drawing from historical evidence,
your own experiences, or current events to support your position?

They suggest combating hate speech by creating constructive opposition. By this,

they mean donating to counter-causes, protesting, rebutting speeches during the
question and answer period, and or protesting. I think all of these solutions are well
thought through and practical. I think that they may or may not be successful,
because some people are simply stubborn and not interested in changing beliefs.
However, people are more likely to listen to reason if they are confronted with a
respectful argument instead of simply being censored and banned from expressing
their opinions. For example, during the Watergate scandal in 1972, the United
States government tried to stop ‘classified’ government information from being
released by the New York Times. This made rumors about it much more prevalent,
and since the government tried to cover it up, the press was much more
determined to give the information to the public. Information that the government
wants censored is much more likely to be given to the public because the press
views it their duty to deliver it. Likewise, banned information would only make it
more popular and prevalent in society. So, reasonable and respectful arguments are
more likely to be successful against hate speech.

Laura Beth Nielsen- The Case for Restricting Hate Speech

1) Laura Beth Nielsen’s op-ed focuses on the targets of unlimited free speech as well
as groups who are protected from ‘troubling speech’. How does she classify them?

She classifies the targets of unlimited free speech as people of color and women,
because people of color are the targets of racist speech, and women are the targets
of sexist speech. She classifies the groups who are protected from ‘troubling
speech’ are soldiers’ families, shoppers, and workers because of legislation that
protects them from hate speech and begging.
 2) Why does Nielsen consider unlimited free speech to be an equity issue- that is, an
issue that creates an unfair disparity between and among groups of people?

She considers it to be an equity issue because hate speech typically victimizes

historically marginalized people, such as women and people of color. She talks
about how hate speech causes physical and emotional side effects, such as
cigarette smoking, anxiety, depression, PTSD, and diminished academic
performances. She says this creates unfair disparity between people that could be
otherwise be avoided if hate speech were not protected by the first amendment.

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

She defines hate speech as ‘tangible harms that are serious… and amount to the
harm of subordination… perpetuating discrimination… [and] creating inequality’.
She specifically views harm as damage to a person’s mental or physical health with
the harm of subordination, discrimination, and inequality creation. This definition is
the basis for her position, as she explains that hate speech is physically and
emotionally damaging, and can lead to lasting harm (anxiety/depression, eating
disorders, and drug use). She also develops the irony that begging is censored in
some places, but causing serious damage to another’s health is not through her
definition of harm.

4) How does Nielsen acknowledge the counterargument? How does she refute it?

She acknowledges the counter argument by saying that some readers will find her
arguments repellent because protecting free speech is consistent with our
founding principles, would break tradition, and would trivialize the experiences of
others. She refutes this by finding two items of common ground: that the right to
speak is already not absolute, and that we are asking disadvantaged groups to take
heavy burdens. She finalizes her side of the argument by emphasizing how
disadvantaged groups will suffer if hate speech is allowed to continue.

Finally, after hearing all of the perspectives, explain what you gained from exploring
various perspectives about freedom of speech. Where do you stand now?

I gained a lot from exploring these various perspectives about freedom of speech. To begin
with, I wished to keep our current government policies concerning free speech the same. I
had never really thought about the protection of hate speech. Now, I know that the best
way to combat hate speech is not necessarily to ban it completely (though Nielsen does
make some good points), but to respectfully protest against it. The article by Stevens and
Phillips really helped me to come to this conclusion, because their solutions seem logical.
Rosenbaum’s argument was less clear than the other two, but it did help me come to the
conclusion that free speech should not impede society. In summary, I learned a lot about
this argument that I did not previously know, and I have learned how to make my own
arguments more compelling to readers.