Questions for Study and Discussion 6

The Case for Censoring Hate Speech by Sean McElwee

English 111_25
Ashlyn Cicuzza

Reflection on What You Know

I believe that we should place a restriction on the first amendment when it becomes
threatening and dangerous to the well-being of others. Specifically, when it comes to death
threats or speech about the act of taking someones life, or wishing something horrific to happen
to them, I believe thats where we should draw a line. In the form of how, I believe that, if done
on social media, the offenders account should be suspended for a period of time, or even
possibly deleted completely if the situation escalated.

1) Identify some places in the essay where McElwee synthesizes his sources. For example,
how does he bring Jeffrey Rosen and Jeremy Waldron into conversation with each other?
With Jeffrey Rosen and Jeremy Waldron, McElwee synthesizes his sources down to the
main ideas, and pits them into a conversation by stating their ideas with they argue:, essentially
creating that clear rift that they are debating or discussing the topic.
2) Near the beginning of the essay, McElwee uses direct quotations from Rosen. Later, he
summarizes Rosens argument, using his own language. How do these different uses of the
source serve different purposes?
Both examples that McElwee uses give the overall impression of well-digested
information and understanding of such. The quote at the beginning acts as the foundation for his
case, providing exact and detailed support, and later moves to summaries as both he and the
reader grasp the concept more. It makes for an easier and more in-depth reading experience, as
well as supports McElwees argument.
3) Which websites does McElwee think have the worst problems with hate speech, and
why? What does he suggest websites could do to improve the situation?
McElwee believes that Twitter, Facebook, and especially Reddit have the worst problems
with hate speech. For Twitter, the hashtags can lead to varying degrees of hate, and if they get
trending, can invite others into the mix to further the hate. Facebook, while it had guidelines for
hate speech, doesnt enforce them as they should. Reddit had a multitude of degrading and
horrific threads on different controversial and downright prejudice topics, which can also
encourage others to join since it has a following to begin with. McElwee believes in a European
system of hate speech policies, rather than full-on government intervention.
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?
With Rosens Twitter example, McElwee pulls into question the free-market ideals and
Twitters ability to naturally deal with hate speech when left to its own devices. He says that
hate speech is not going to disappear from Twitter on its own.
McElwee doesnt believe that these sites are going to magically clear up the hate issues on their
own, if left to do so. He sees the Twitter example as a prominent display of how things can easily
get out of hand, and without intervention, will continue to do so.
5) What does McElwee believe are the two goals of hate speech? Do you agree or disagree,
why?
McElwee believes that the two goals of hate speech are to tell bigots that they are not
alone and to intimidate the targeted minority, leading them to question whether their dignity
and social status is secure. I agree with these, because Ive seen how, once these things get
started, many people get caught up in them and more join in, and people show their true colors. It
also is to, overall, degrade the targeted party and make them feel worthless, rather than just
question their dignity and status.
6) How does he answer the concern that limiting hate speech is like standing on a slippery
precipice (12)? What does he say to the charge that restricting hate speech is just about
avoiding giving offense to the people who are overly sensitive?
McElwee, addressing the concern of standing on a slippery precipice refers to the
guidelines put in place in Canada, France, England, Germany, Australia, and a few others. He
states that they all have put some sort of a ban on hate speech yet dont have any sort of a
dictatorship or totalitarian way when it comes to free speech, just because hate speech has been
limited. When it comes to offending the prudes, McElwee explains that offensive language and
phrases arent the issue its because a group or persons wellbeing and dignity is being
attacked. The keyword here is attacked versus offended.
7) Who do you believe is the audience for McElwees article? Cite places in the text that
give you clues about what audience he has in mind.
McElwees audience is people who believe that censoring hate speech would be a
violation of the first amendment. This is abundantly clear from his argumentative position on the
subject, as well as the various counterarguments he provides, one example being: some people
argue that the purpose of laws that ban hate speech is merely to avoid offending prudes. It is
apparent that McElwee doesnt approve of hate speech in any form, and his entire essay is a
stance on why it should be limited. His citations for several prominent sources of hate material
(/r/nazi, /r/killawoman, /r/misogyny, etc) and his reaction to such helps build the evidence that
his audience is people who think this is fine and dandy.