Sean McElwee The Case for Censoring Hate Speech Questions

Zack Vegso

Reflecting on What You Know:

I agree with most of the restrictions that the United States currently has in place, such as

banning fighting words, child pornography, and speech that incited imminent lawless action.

These kinds of speech pose a legitimate threat to public safety. However I disagree with the

author in that I do not think hate speech should be banned and I am against the European model.

I agree with Jeffrey Rosen that social media, as well as our society in general, should be a

democratic space where all values, including civility norms, are always open to debate. Question

everything.

Questions for Study and Discussion

1. McElwee lays Rosen and Waldrons arguments in succeeding paragraphs respectively.

Rosen is against hate speech laws while Waldron is for them. He lays them out in this

way so that the reader can compare their two arguments side-by-side.
2. Rosen states that given their tremendous size and importance as platforms of free

speech, companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter should consider

themselves democratic spaces where all values, including civility norms, are always

open for debate. Later McElwee summarizes Rosens argument as norms of civility

should be open to discussion. But McElwee disagrees with Rosen, going on to say but,

in todays reality, this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of

their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society. Banning hate speech

is not a mechanism to further this debate because the debate is over. Personally I think

McElwee is ridiculous for saying this. Rosen isnt saying we do away with social norms
 entirely, merely that we allow them to be questioned. It is totalitarians who forbid

ideological opposition like that and jail those who dare question the societal norms. That

is what the European model entails.

3. McElwee cites Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit as having problems with hate speech. He

says Facebook and other websites should not tolerate hate speech and, in the absence of

a government mandate, adopt a European model of expunging offensive material.

4. He compares Rosens ideas with what he calls free market fundamentalism (basically

what he means by that is laissez faire capitalism). Rosen states that the Twittersphere is

perfectly capable of dealing with hate speech on its own, without heavy-handed

intervention. McElwee cited the existence a map compiled by Humboldt State

University of 150,000 hateful tweet from the US over an 11 month period (not the data

the map showed, just the maps mere existence).

5. McElwee claims the two goals of hate speech to a) tell bigots that they are not alone

and b) "intimidate the targeted minority, leading them to question whether their dignity

and social status is secure. I think in this the author is generally right. People with

similar views (particularly political views) tend to group together and reassure each other

that theyre not alone. This goes for all people, not just for people who promote hate

speech. And I think there is an aspect of intimidation for many of these people. But I

think the primary goal is to express and spread their views, even if theyre perceived by

many to be hateful.
6. McElwee argues that countries that have implemented hate speech laws, such as Canada,

England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, South Africa and India havent slipped into

totalitarianism and that these countries are in fact more free as a result. While I would

agree that these countries are not outright totalitarian, none of these countries really have

freedom of speech. As I said in my This I Believe essay, While I find hate speech to
 be wrong and I vehemently disagree with these views, these hate speech laws are a major

violation of the freedom of speech no government should punish someone merely for

expressing their views. While these countries are not outright totalitarian states, the

European model is in fact a step towards totalitarianism.

His counterargument against the slippery precipice argument is that No country,

however, has mandated that anything be excised from the public square merely because it

provokes offense, but rather because it attacks the dignity of a group. He also states that,

The goal is for companies to adopt a European-model hate speech policy, one not aimed

at expunging offense, but rather hate. This, of course, runs contradictory to what he

states in the very first paragraph, Facebook and other websites should not tolerate hate

speech and, in the absence of a government mandate, adopt a European model of

expunging offensive material. McElwee is contradicting himself within his own essay.

And also, the slippery slope argument is a very valid point. Who gets to decide what is

hateful? For example, there are many Muslims, as well as some non-Muslims who

consider any criticism of Islam or of Muhammad is hate speech and often times accuse

those that do of racism (despite the fact that Islam is not a race). Should we now

implement blasphemy laws to prevent people from offending Muslims, as some European

countries already have, and are enforcing for this very reason? No, of course not!

Because Islam like all religions is merely a set of ideas and beliefs. And like any idea, it

can and should be criticized, scrutinized, and satirized.

7. Its an argumentative essay so his main target audience were people who were perhaps

on the fence on this issue. He also aims for people who are familiar with social media as

the topic of the essay is to make a case for censoring hate speech on social media.