Free Speech Study Guide
Purpose of the nursery rhyme in paragraph 8? ("Should be Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?")
It implies that placing limits on speech we are privileging physical over emotional harm.
Why is "hate speech" in quotation marks? ("No, There's No 'Hate Speech' Exception to the First Amendment")
It is in quotation marks because there is no real such thing as "hate speech" according to Volokh. He provides multiple reasons that are included in the First Amendment that determine that hate speech doesn't exist.
Comparisons (purpose) ("Free Speech Isn't Always Valuable. That's Not the Point")
Makes comparisons about Wall Street Journal and overlap between liberal and conservative Facebook feeds to show free speech being detrimental. Uses Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and compared to a marketplace and making space for other things.
Author's target audience ("Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech")
People who think free speech is detrimental and only makes matters worse. People who can't find the answers to hate speech.
What the author is implicitly encouraging her audience to imagine itself in (The Case for Restricting Hate Speech)
Trying to make us imagine ourselves in our people's shoes and explain the affects of free speech and hate speech. To make us consider both sides.
Assumptions the author makes about her audience ("Free Speech Isn't Always Valuable. That's Not the Point")
When picturing a marketplace, you can't help but assess the value of the goods for sale. Thinks that you will come across something that will wake you wonder what's so great about free speech. You will blame the people that misinterpret what the First Amendment means.
Author's tone ("No, There's No 'Hate Speech' Exception to the First Amendment")
His tone is very stern and unaccepting. He provides facts and evidence to his claims and he is very confident.
Author's main argument ("No, There's No 'Hate Speech' Exception to the First Amendment")
His main argument is neglecting the claims about hate speech and giving reasons to why it can applied to the First Amendment and how there are no exceptions. He provides some counterarguments but quickly debunks them.
Author's tone ("Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech")
His tone is in a convincing and challenging tone to the opposition at hand.
Primary function of the first paragraph ("Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech")
He opens up with a counterargument on why free speech can be negative, but quickly explains why we need to stay calm and steadfast when faced with people who's opinions are like this.
How does the passage end? ("Should be Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?")
He uses repetition at the end to greatly describe his point about how free speech can invade and ruin our lives as a whole. He deeply expresses why using it so recklessly can be a detriment to society.
Rhetorical strategies used (The Case for Restricting Hate Speech)
Rhetorical strategies being used include repetition, explaining both sides, and providing sufficient info and evidence.
Author's voice or persona ("Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech")
The author is trying to encourage and motivate the reader on why free speech is the answer to hate speech.
Author's belief about the First Amendment ("Free Speech Isn't Always Valuable. That's Not the Point")
The author thinks that the First Amendment when applied is great, but makes you wonder what's so great about free speech. "Nobody is all that fond of it in practice", the author thinks.
Author's primary purpose ("Free Speech Isn't Always Valuable. That's Not the Point")
The author's primary purpose is to explain how free speech isn't always valuable and how it can be idiotic, hurtful, and detrimental. She explains the flaws of the First Amendment and that we gain no benefit from hate speech. She explains that we should acknowledge but that it isn't always necessary in certain situations.
Author's main claims ("Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech")
The authors' main claims are that censoring a speaker may increase their reason to threaten and potentially harm someone. He thinks that limiting free speech puts more fuel on the fire and only makes the situation worse. He thinks engagement is the most effective tool even if it is a difficult task to pull off.
Primary of the focus of the passage. ("Should be Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?")
The primary focus of the passage is to explain how free speech can have negative mental and physical affects on us as human beings. Explaining how free speech can do more harm than good if used recklessly. It encourages bad deeds to happen.
Primary function of paragraphs 10 - 11 (The Case for Restricting Hate Speech)
The primary function of the paragraphs is to express the counterargument and make the reader in disagreement to acknowledge the downsides of free speech and who it is hurting.
Purpose of including Beauharnais v. Illinois ("No, There's No 'Hate Speech' Exception to the First Amendment")
To emphasize that it is illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason. To further exemplify the First Amendment and on how there is no exception.
Purpose of the first sentence (The Case for Restricting Hate Speech)
To explain how some people still don't understand the entire concept of free speech and how hate speech is affected.
Purpose of the numbered list at the end of paragraph 5 ("Free Speech Is the Most Effective Antidote to Hate Speech")
To prove the author's point on how limiting free speech can cause more negative effects than good. It explains how censoring a speaker can lead to more negative effects.
