Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine Passage Analysis - Research Paper Example

 Passage Analysis Step 1 Main conclusion: Free speech is fundamental to a free society and for free inquiry. Freedom of speech is an essential right to any society that claims to be democratic. Freedom of speech is fundamental to the discovery of truth and the investigation of ideas. Step 2 Main Concepts Hate speech Free speech Freedom of speech Pornography Autonomy Step 3 Formulate the main conceptual question with which the passage is concerned. Is free speech fundamental? How is free speech fundamental to the society? Is free speech fundamental in discovery of truth? Distinction between hate speech and free speech Step 4 Freedom of speech is fundamental to the discovery of truth and the investigation of ideas. Free speech is fundamental to a free society and for free inquiry. Step 6 Step 6: Examine the author’s use of two main concepts in the passage. Are they clearly defined? Are they used in a sense that it too narrow or too wide? Are they used consistently or do they shift in meaning throughout the passage? Can their weaknesses be strengthened (i.e., positively or constructively criticized)? Hate Speech Free Speech Suppression of offensive and hate speech does not solve the underlying problem of prejudice and inequality Groups critical of Israel are accused of uttering hate speech A university professor criticizes a funding body as having a disproportionate number of supporters of Israel and is accused of being racist and uttering hate speech Pornography is hate speech against women Fundamental right of any society that claims to be democratic It is especially valuable in an institution of learning such as a university Fundamental to the discovery of truth and the investigation of ideas Fundamental to a free society and for free inquiry Basic to human autonomy and to the discovery of truth Encourage free speech, so we can expose the lies and learn from the process. Are these concepts clearly defined? Free Speech: Concept of free speech is mostly defined clearly, since each claim is clearly explained; an example is the argument of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty in 1859 Hate Speech A number of examples supporting the concept of hate speech are clearly given in the first paragraph of the passage. Illustration of such example is the argument that pornography is hate speech against women. Hate speech is not well explained. Only examples and accusations made against hate speech are given. It would be helpful if the author defined hate speech and outlined its effects. Are they used in a sense that is too narrow or too wide? Free speech: The concept of free speech in the passage seems broad in the following sense: Each paragraph demonstrates the importance of freedom of speech Hate speech: The concept of hate speech in the passage is narrow. The author does not give a clear definition of hate speech. Effects of the hate speech appear to be missing. Are they used consistently or do they shift in meaning? Free speech Free speech does not shift in meaning. It is constantly used with consistency across the whole passage. The concept is consistently coupled with verified truth, certainty. The fundamentals of freedom of speech are vastly evident throughout the passage with each having a clear explanation and supporting evidence. Hate speech The author does not use the concept of hate speech consistently. The passage begins with the author posing a question whether hate speech should be banned on campuses. There is no clear conclusion whether hate speech should be prohibited in these learning institutions or not. Rather the author emphasizes on the worth of freedom of speech (Weinstein, 1999). Can their weaknesses be strengthened? Free speech: Weakness – Freedom of speech is a human right but it should have a limit. As it is with other human right, it should have a limit. Way to strengthen – The author should provide means of regulating the freedom of speech to prevent an individual from violating another person right in the name of carrying out their freedom of speech. Hate speech: Weakness – the author does not provide a clear definition of hate speech. In addition, there are no consequences of hate speech in the passage (Weinstein, 1999). Way to strengthen – the author could provide a clear definition of hate speech and include its effects in the passage. STEP 7 Step 7: Do a final map of the main arguments after reconsidering your answer to steps 1 and 4 above. Evaluate the argument. Always decide personally on the adequacy of each premise and conclusion. Does the argument violate any of the criteria for a good argument? Are there any clear and serious fallacies? Can some of the arguments be made stronger (i.e., positively or constructively criticized)? Basic Diagram of Argument: Pornography is a hate speech aligned with women Freedom of speech is fundamental right of any society that claims to be democratic. Freedom of speech is valuable in institutions of learning such as a university. Freedom of speech is fundamental to the discovery of truth and the investigation of ideas. Free speech is core to any free society and free inquiry. Attempt to subdue free speech is not only rarely effective but are often used against those they are designed to protect. Since suppression of free speech is rarely effective, it is fundamental to a free society and for free inquiry. Suppression of offensive hate speech does not solve the underlying problem of prejudice and inequality. Given that restraint of hate speech does not solve underlying problem of prejudice and inequality, free speech is fundamental for a free society and free inquiry. Through encouraging free speech, it is easy to expose the lies and learn from the process. This implies the importance of free speech in a free society and free inquiry. Does the argument violate any of the criteria for a good argument? Violates competence criteria: Attempt to suppress free speech is not only rarely effective but are often used against those they are designed to protect. Since suppression of free speech is rarely effective, it is fundamental to a free society and for free inquiry. The above premises violate competence criteria. They contain hasty generalization. Controlling of freedom of speech on matters that offend any ethnic group, religion, gender or sexual orientation has a great impact on free speech in that society (Weinstein, 1999). Pornography is a hate speech against women In Canada, a law introduced to suppress certain kinds of pornography that objectified women was used against lesbian erotica—not against heterosexual or violent pornography, its intended target. The two premises violate competence criteria The above two contain a hasty generalization The law in just a single country is not sufficient to prove this argument and conclude that indeed pornography is a hate speech against women (Weinstein, 1999). These arguments violate the Relevancy principle for good argumentation. The relevancy criteria states that we need to provide reasons that bear upon the conclusion, that is, that make a difference to the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Relevancy is violated in this situation when the author states that pornography is a hate speech towards women merely by considering the laws of just one country, Canada. The argument principle is violated in this argument since the author has used insufficient sources to validate the conclusion when he gives the irrelevant premise of hasty generalization. This is the same case when the arguer states that time after time, attempts to suppress free speech not only are rarely effective but also are often used against the subordinate and persecuted groups in the society. Are there any serious and clear fallacies? Hasty generalization The following statements are examples of hasty generalization fallacy present in the passage. “Pornography is hate speech against women.” “Attempts to suppress free speech not only are rarely effective but are often used against those they are designed to protect—the subordinate and persecuted groups in society” “As with any law, it is far more likely to be used to protect the powerful and suppress the powerless.” Neutralizing a fallacy: Main conclusion: attempts to suppress free speech not only are rarely effective but are often used against those they are designed to protect—the subordinate and persecuted groups in society Reason for the main point: As with any law, it is far more likely to be used to protect the powerful and suppress the powerless Identify the fallacy: Hasty generalization Criteria for the fallacy: The fallacy is committed in this argument when the author states that attempts to suppress free speech are rarely effective and are often used against the subordinate and persecuted groups in the society. Drawing to such a conclusion on the basis that, as with any other law, it is far more likely to be used to protect the powerful and suppress the powerless then that means we must accept it. Challenging the fallacy: The argument violates the validity standard for a good argumentation. The relevancy criteria states that we need to present explanations that bear upon the conclusion i.e. that distinguish the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Relevancy violation is evident when the author makes an assumption that laws are often used to protect the powerful and suppress the powerless in the society and the same case apply to the process of suppressing free speech. The argument principle is debased in this argument since the author has not provided sufficient reasons to justify the conclusion when he gives the irrelevant premise of hasty generalization. Can some of the argument be made stronger? In the first paragraph, the author ought to have provided a clear definition of hate speech to accompany the examples give. The arguer should have also provided supporting evidence to the statement pornography is a hate speech against women. The author should have provided consequence of the hate speech in the passage. Conviction I am partially convinced by the argument discussed by the author in the passage. As much as freedom of speech is important in any society or organization it should be regulated to ensure that as individual exercise right to free speech, they do not interfere with the rights of others. The author condemns the University for implementing codes to regulate free speech and terms this as violation of a basic premise on which this institution operates. According to my opinion, this contrasts the argument of the author; the universities should implement codes that prohibit hate speech. This argument does not lead me to believe suppression of offensive and hate speech should not be done on the basis that we are exercising our freedom of speech. Reference Weinstein, J. (1999). Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine. Colorado: West view Press. Read More