Censoring Hate Speech

P 258
Gregory DeLoach
1. Identify some places in the essay where McElwee synthesizes his sources. For
example, how does he bring Jeffrey Rosen and Jeremy Waldron in
conversation with each other?
a. One synthesizes of sources is Julian Yorks and Arthur Schopenhauers.
i. The first states that banning hate speech is futile and sets a
dangerous precedent for special interest.
ii. The next statement states that freedom of the press should be
governed by a very strict prohibition of all and every anonymity.
iii. He brings Rosen and Waldon by stating Rosens position has
already decided by civil society, and Waldons posisiton is that
vulnerable minorities already are in a less secure position in
society.

2. Near the beginning of the essay, McElwee uses direct quotations from Roses.
Later, he summarizes Rosens argument, using his own language. How do
these different uses of the source serve different purposes?
a. In the direct quotation McElee points out that hate speech can be
regulated without government intervention, that the free market will
regulate itself.
b. In the summary of Rosens argument, McElwee shows that his
argument is flawed because hate speech is degrading and cant by
offset by nice speech.
c. The argument of hate speech is that it should be banned. The direct
quote is used to say hate speech is not impossible to stop by just

letting the market alone. The summary proves that Rosens argument
about civility norms does not even get off the ground because hate
speech is very damaging and cant be offset.

3. Which websites does McElee think have the worst problem with hate speech,
and why? What does he suggest websites could do to improve the situation.
a. The main website that uses hate speech is Reddit because Reddit has
become a veritable potpourri of hate speech.
i. In the absence of a government mandate, websites should adopt
a European model of expunging offensive material that is
intended to intimidate vulnerable groups.

4. In this essay, McElwee responds to an argument by Jeffrey Rosen. Why does

he object to Rosens position on free speech? What, for example, does he
think is wrong with the evidence Rosen cites about how Twitter reacted to
the hashtag #unbonjuif
a. McElwee does not believe that the free market will simply remove hate
speech.
b. He also stated that twitter handled the hate speech from anti-Semitic
to denunciations of anti-Semitism, which means the French
government took the hate speech down from twitter. He also does not
believe the market place of ideas will correct itself naturally.
5. What dos DcElwee believe are the two goals of hate speech? Do you agree or
disagree, and why?
a. The first goal is an attempt to tell bigots that they are not alone. The
second rule is to intimidate a minority.

i. Yes, I agree. Hate speech has no place in our already polarized

society because of its negative effects on people.

6. How does he answer the concern that limiting hate speech is like standing
on a slippery precipice? What does he say to the charge that restricting hate
speech is just about avoiding giving offense to people who are overly
sensitive?
a. He responds by naming several countries that ban hate speech and in
many ways are more free by doing so.
b. People who are overly prude.
i. He states that the goal is not to eliminate things that tare
controversial, but those statements that attack the dignity of a
group.

7. Who do you believe is the audience for McElwees article? Cite places in the
text that give you clues about what audience he as in mind.
a. I believe the audience is people who use online social websites.
i. In the beginning of the essay, he uses a quote that includes
Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Twitter. McElwee states Facebook
was dealing with the issue of misogyny and that women were
fighting to get rid of it. He also cites several hash tags from
Reddit as examples

8. Reflect on what you know

a. The idea of free speech was simple when I was younger. All it meant to
me was that people could say and think ever what they wanted. But
now, dealing with the anonymity of free speech online, things get so
out of hand that moderators should simply shutdown the thread. Just
as you cant yell fire in a crowded theater, I dont believe you should
allow hateful speech on the internet. I believe that the websites should
enforce their policies and that the courts should judge any disputes.