Benjamin Betts

QUESTIONS FOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION #6

Ch. 10 The Case for Censoring Hate Speech by Sean McElwee (258)

Reflecting on what you know:

There is an incredibly complex 20 step process for assessing each and every
situation that should be employed if possible, but to be brief: I believe that speech
in any form ought to be restricted when the system for determine when, where,
why, and how to do so is more out of respect to the rights of individuals than any
other cause, namely the desire for power of those who are perceived a threat and
also that system does not determine to do so when the cost of the tyranny it
invokes and harm from that course does not outweigh the harm caused by the
speech itself. For example, screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre when there is
none can cause potentially lethal harm and so the courts have ruled that libel which
provokes panic is more harmful than the act of preventing one from uttering such
and the method the courts use is out of respect for the safety for movie-goers
rather than to exert control or profit off of the speaker of the incendiary remarks.
1. The author in paragraphs 2.5 and 3.5 uses block text to quote Rosen. He uses
quotation marked lines, about the same idea, from Rosen and Walden in
paragraphs 14 and 15 to make them appear as though they are commenting
on one another.

2. Using a quote in quotations rather than block italics make the quote part of a
larger paragraph. Doing this adds a more natural and conversational tone. He
places these quotes where they are meant to interact w/ other quotes unlike
the first set of quotes where they are meant to be individual autonomous
thoughts.

3. He cites Reddit, for instance, has become a veritable pot pourri of hate
speech. And recommends Facebooks code as the solution, saying:
Facebooks police as written should be a model in referring to how to solve
the problem, in the last paragraph.

4. Mc Elwee disagrees with Rosens argument on the basis that it is based on

anecdotal evidence that supports a confirmation bias rather than reality. He
then provides counter-evidence by way of Humbolt State Universitys study
conducted showing a phenomenon that contradicts Rosens claim.

5. The author states community solidarity and intimidation as the two purposes
of hate speech. I agree that both can be goals of hate speech, however other
goals such as too harm or censure the listener/target, to invalidate a persons
opinion, or to express anger, frustration, or fear over perceived harm can
 produce the what would seem the same result. Behavior is rarely an indicated
of attitude and so the two most be handled almost entirely separately.

6. The author addresses the concern of the slippery slope of the policy he
recommends by citing and example of countries who have implemented the
policy and have not seen the results one would expect if it were indeed a
slippery slope. To the concern that hate speech is only to avoid offense he
cites alterative decision-making standards when determining whether or not
the courts decide to rule or punish something for hate speech.

7. Mc Elwee seems to be targeting groups that either are voting on or are a part
of social media management. He repeatedly mentions the effectiveness of
government bodies forcing social media to adhere to hate speech censoring.