finish discussion and respond to others work 2

Discussion 3.1: Week 3: Chapter: “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?”

Answer ONE of the following questions that has not been answered by a previous poster, unless they have all been answered once already. Also post a paragraph response to one of the other postings by your classmates. Make clear which comment you are responding to. You may agree, disagree, ask a question, or try to come up with a transition connecting two of the ideas in different postings. Please post by Thurs. 2/14 at midnight.

Choice 1: Type a three paragraph response. Summarize the first two quotes that present somewhat opposing views on the issue of restricting hate speech, and give your opinion about whether you agree or disagree with the situation presented in the third quote. If you’re confused about what the quotes mean, go back and read the surrounding context in our reading packet for this week, “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?” The quotes are all from this packet, so you should be able to find them by looking at the page number. Also, feel free to ask questions of your classmates or me if you’re confused about the meaning of something, especially since some of the language can be legalistic and difficult.

Quote 1*“The Supreme Court has held that words which ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ are not protected by the First Amendment” (Lawrence 375)

Quote 2•“Hate speech is the expression of bigotry and prejudice—and these in turn are the products of ignorance. I know no better place to address ignorance than in our schools, and no better way to do so than in exposing all of our ideas, good and bad, ugly and beautiful, to the light of scrutiny within our classes” (Tuman 385).

Example 3•Part-time lecturer Murray Dolfman at the University of Pennsylvania was suspended for asking black students to explain the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting “’involuntary servitude’” (Hentoff 382).

Choice 2. Type a three-paragraph response. Summarize the first two quotes that present somewhat opposing views on the issue of restricting hate speech, and give your opinion about whether you agree or disagree with the situation presented in the third quote. If you’re confused about what the quotes mean, go back and read the surrounding context in our reading packet for this week, “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?” The quotes are all from this packet, so you should be able to find them by looking at the page number. Also, feel free to ask questions of your classmates or me if you’re confused about the meaning of something, especially since some of the language can be legalistic and difficult.

Quote 1•University of Wisconsin political science professor Carol Tebben said “I don’t think students need to be protected from bad ideas. I think they can determine for themselves which ideas are bad”. . . After all, if students are to be ‘protected’ from bad ideas, how are they going to learn to identify and cope with them? Sending such ideas underground simply makes them stronger and more dangerous” (Hentoff 379).

Quote 2•“To engage in a debate about the First Amendment and racist speech without a full understanding of the nature and extent of that harm is to risk making the First Amendment an instrument of domination rather than a vehicle of liberation” (Lawrence 376)

Example 3•A UCLA cartoon satirized affirmative action by showing a rooster who got in based on affirmative action, and the editor and art director of the newspaper were suspended (Hentoff 380).

Choice 3. Type a three-paragraph response. Summarize the first two quotes that present somewhat opposing views on the issue of restricting hate speech, and give your opinion about whether you agree or disagree with the situation presented in the third quote. If you’re confused about what the quotes mean, go back and read the surrounding context in our reading packet for this week, “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?” The quotes are all from this packet, so you should be able to find them by looking at the page number. Also, feel free to ask questions of your classmates or me if you’re confused about the meaning of something, especially since some of the language can be legalistic and difficult.

Quote 1•“ As a teacher, I thus looked with unease at regulations which might restrict what can be said in the classroom. . . I am not certain that clear regulations prohibiting hate speech can be designed without also entangling other forms of speech—speech that may otherwise be protected by the First Amendment” (Tuman 384)

Quote 2•“ A wise undergraduate student. . .debated me on this point. . .declaring that those rules aren’t so difficult. People know what kind of words and insults we’re talking about” (Tuman 384)

Example 3•At the University of Buffalo Law School, faculty adopted a statement that students’ right to free speech is “tempered ‘by the responsibility to promote equality and justice’” (Hentoff 380).

Choice 4. Type a three-paragraph response. Summarize the first two quotes that present somewhat opposing views on the issue of restricting hate speech, and give your opinion about whether you agree or disagree with the situation presented in the third quote. If you’re confused about what the quotes mean, go back and read the surrounding context in our reading packet for this week, “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?” The quotes are all from this packet, so you should be able to find them by looking at the page number. Also, feel free to ask questions of your classmates or me if you’re confused about the meaning of something, especially since some of the language can be legalistic and difficult.

Quote 1•Blacks and other people of color are skeptical about the argument that even the most injurious speech must remain unregulated because. . .the best ones will rise to the top and gain acceptance. Our experience tells us quite the opposite. We have seen too many demagogues elected by appealing to America’s racism” (Lawrence 377).

Quote 2•A student at NYU stated that “we ought to examine why students, so anxious to wield the Fourteenth Amendment, give short shrift to the First. Yes, Virginia, there are racist assholes. And you know what, the Constitution protects them too” (381). Hentoff adds, “Not when they engaged in violence or vandalism. But when they speak or write. . . “ (Hentoff 381).

Example 3•Chancellor Sheila Kaplan of the University of Wisconsin Parkside ordered “her campus to be scoured of ‘some anonymously placed white-supremacist hate literature’” (Hentoff 379).

Choice 5: Type a three-paragraph response. Summarize the first two quotes that present somewhat opposing views on the issue of restricting hate speech, and give your opinion about whether you agree or disagree with the situation presented in the third quote. If you’re confused about what the quotes mean, go back and read the surrounding context in our reading packet for this week, “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?” The quotes are all from this packet, so you should be able to find them by looking at the page number. Also, feel free to ask questions of your classmates or me if you’re confused about the meaning of something, especially since some of the language can be legalistic and difficult.

Quote 1•“ [A] 1992 Supreme Court ruling. , . struck down a hate-crime ordinance in St. Paul, Minn., and held that cross-burning could be considered protected speech” (386)

Quote 2•The Brown [vs. Board of Education] case is again instructive because it speaks directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of segregation affected ‘the hearts and minds’. . .’in a way unlikely ever to be undone.’ Racial epithets and harassment often cause deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear that pervade every aspect of a victim’s life. . . Brown also recognized that black children did not have an equal opportunity to learn and participate in the school community if they bore the additional burden of being subjected to the humiliation and psychic assault contained in the message of segregation. University students bear an analogous burden when they are forced to live and work in an environment where at any moment they may be subjected to denigrating verbal harassment and assault. The same injury was addressed by the Supreme Court when it held that sexual harassment that creates a hostile or abusive work environment violates the ban on sex discrimination in employment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Lawrence 377).

Example 3•Student host and producer of a radio news show at the University of Kansas was forbidden from interviewing a leader of the KKK (Hentoff 379)

Choice 6: Type a three-paragraph response. Summarize the first two quotes that present somewhat opposing views on the issue of restricting hate speech, and give your opinion about whether you agree or disagree with the situation presented in the third quote. If you’re confused about what the quotes mean, go back and read the surrounding context in our reading packet for this week, “Is Hate Speech Free Speech?” The quotes are all from this packet, so you should be able to find them by looking at the page number. Also, feel free to ask questions of your classmates or me if you’re confused about the meaning of something, especially since some of the language can be legalistic and difficult.

Quote 1•“Carefully drafted university regulations would bar the use of words as assault weapons and leave unregulated even the most heinous of ideas when those ideas are presented at times and places and in manners that provide an opportunity for reasoned rebuttal or escape from immediate injury . . . We have drawn the line between protected and unprotected speech before without dire results. (Courts have, for example, exempted from the protection of the First Amendment obscene speech and speech that disseminates official secrets, that defames or libels another person, or that is used to form a conspiracy or monopoly)” (Lawrence 377).

Quote 2 •The Stanford code forbids only “’fighting words’ linked to sex and race. . .’the face-to-face use of racial epithets’” (387).

Example 3•Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Stone ruled, “the [Stanford] Speech Code prohibits words which will not only cause people to react violently, but also cause them to feel insulted or stigmatized. . . [Stanford] cannot proscribe speech that merely hurts the feelings of those who hear it” (387).

—————————————————————————————————

Choice 7: Write a one paragraph summary and a one paragraph analysis of “The Debate Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims” (Lawrence 374-). For the analysis, you may address some of these issues: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the arguments and decisions made? What are the subtleties and assumptions behind the arguments? To what extent do the decisions depend on how we define terms and actions? With regards to this aspect of free speech, how might we balance our individual preferences with a right belonging to all people?

Choice 8: Write a one paragraph summary and a one paragraph analysis of “Free Speech on the Campus” (Hentoff 378-). For the analysis, you may address some of these issues: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the arguments and decisions made? What are the subtleties and assumptions behind the arguments? To what extent do the decisions depend on how we define terms and actions? With regards to this aspect of free speech, how might we balance our individual preferences with a right belonging to all people?

Choice 9: Write a one paragraph summary and a one paragraph analysis of “Hate Speech on Campus” (Tuman 383-). For the analysis, you may address some of these issues: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the arguments and decisions made? What are the subtleties and assumptions behind the arguments? To what extent do the decisions depend on how we define terms and actions? With regards to this aspect of free speech, how might we balance our individual preferences with a right belonging to all people?

Choice 10: Write a one paragraph summary and a one paragraph analysis of “Rethinking Campus Speech Codes” (Wildavsky 385-). For the analysis, you may address some of these issues: to what extent do you agree or disagree with the arguments and decisions made? What are the subtleties and assumptions behind the arguments? To what extent do the decisions depend on how we define terms and actions? With regards to this aspect of free speech, how might we balance our individual preferences with a right belonging to all people?

 

Looking for a similar assignment? Our writers will offer you original work free from plagiarism. We follow the assignment instructions to the letter and always deliver on time. Be assured of a quality paper that will raise your grade. Order now and Get a 15% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"