philosophy test

content of speech vs. time, place, or manner of speech (what is this doctrine?)

Doctrine: Regulations can control when, where, and how speech happens (time/place/manner), but not its actual content, unless it causes serious harm

2. What exception does Mill make to his support of freedom of expression? Why does he make that exception?

Exception: Speech that directly incites harm or violence (like telling an angry mob to attack someone). Why: Because the harm is immediate and direct, making it necessary to intervene.

why j.s. mill thinks its wrong to censor both true and falsehoods

False ideas challenge the truth and keep it alive. Suppressing falsehood risks suppressing truth. Debating falsehoods strengthens understanding.

Cumulative Harm

Harm builds over time as repeated hate speech or discrimination creates long-term damage to individuals and communities.

expressive harm (altman)

Harm caused by the message itself—degrading, demeaning, or attacking a person's identity; a harm that derives from the kind of attitude expressed in the very act of hate speech

definition of harm according to Arthur in sticks and stones

Harm involves violating important interests, such as physical safety, emotional well-being, or dignity, in a serious and wrongful way.

Casual harm (Altman speech codes)

Harm that occurs because speech directly leads to harmful actions or consequences (e.g., inciting violence). ;verbal hate speech leads to hate crime etc

group defamation (also called group libel) (Waldron)

Harmful falsehoods targeting an entire group, spreading damaging stereotypes that undermine dignity and social standing.

why Matsuda thinks government may rightly restrict hate speech

Hate speech perpetuates oppression and causes real harm, especially to marginalized groups, and thus the government should intervene to protect them.

What are human or general rights?

Human or general rights are rights that everyone has simply by being human.

treating someone merely as means, treating them as an end (Kant/ONeill)

Means: Using someone solely to achieve your own goals without considering their humanity. End: Respecting someone as a person with their own goals and rights, not just as a tool.

1. What overall argument does Mill give for his claim that people should be free to express both their true and false beliefs without censorship? What ethical theory is his argument based on?

Mill's argument: Suppressing any opinion is wrong because even false beliefs challenge the truth, which keeps it alive and strengthens understanding. Truth benefits society. Ethical theory: Utilitarianism (maximizing overall happiness/well-being).

What are non-interference rights?

Non-interference rights are negative rights where others or the government should not interfere with you.

why j Arthur thinks freedom of speech is fragile (2 reasons)

People tend to silence unpopular views. Social and political pressures can erode free expression.

What are positive rights?

Positive rights are rights where others or the government should help or provide something, such as healthcare.

4. What are Mari Matsuda's reasons for arguing that laws against hate speech would be justified? State one objection.

Reasons: Hate speech perpetuates historical oppression, causes cumulative harm to marginalized groups, and undermines equality. Objection: Limiting hate speech could set a dangerous precedent for restricting other types of speech, potentially leading to government overreach.

5. What general reasons does John Arthur give in "Sticks and Stones" for his conclusion that hate speech should not be banned? One objection?

Reasons: Protecting freedom of speech preserves autonomy and democratic debate. Harm from speech is often subjective and hard to define legally. Objection: But if speech repeatedly and intentionally targets vulnerable groups, it can create environments of fear and exclusion, which restricts those groups' autonomy.

recognition respect vs appraisal respect (Waldron)

Recognition respect: Respecting someone's rights and status as a person. Appraisal respect: Respecting someone for their character, achievements, or actions.

why A. Altman thinks that banning slurs would be acceptable (speech codes)

Slurs express hatred and degrade dignity, which is incompatible with creating an equal and respectful public environment.

assurance of basic equal treatment as a public good (Waldron) -know what this is

Society owes people the assurance they can participate safely and equally in public life without fear of being dehumanized or attacked. (dignity and respect)

What are special rights?

Special rights are rights based on a specific relationship, such as parent-child.

hate speech (Arthurs definition)

Speech that expresses hatred towards a group based on attributes like race, religion, gender, etc., potentially causing harm.

3. Mill thinks we are better off if everyone is free to express false beliefs. Why does he think so? Present an objection someone might make to this.

Why Mill thinks so: False beliefs force us to defend and sharpen the truth, which strengthens society's understanding and happiness. Objection: Constantly hearing harmful false beliefs (like racist or sexist claims) can cause real psychological and social harm, which may outweigh the benefits of allowing them.

8. Andrew Altman, in "Speech Codes and Expressive Harm," argues that racially demeaning scholarship, research, and literature must be permitted in universities, even though it can constitute expressive harm and causal harm to students in targeted groups. What is his argument for this? Raise one objection.

Altman's argument: The university's purpose is to foster the pursuit of truth through academic freedom. Suppressing ideas, even harmful ones, would undermine that mission. Objection: Allowing demeaning research can create a hostile learning environment for minority students, damaging their educational opportunities and undermining equality in the academic setting.

9. Even though Altman thinks it would be wrong to suppress racist research in a university, he argues it would be legitimate to censor racial epithets and slurs. Why does he make this exception? What is Arthur's objection?

Altman's reason: Racial slurs serve no academic purpose and directly undermine the equality and dignity of students, harming the university's goal of equal respect. Arthur's objection: Banning slurs risks expanding restrictions in ways that might chill free speech, as it may be difficult to clearly define which expressions are unacceptable without stifling legitimate debate.

7. What is John Arthur's argument that hate speech does not harm the target group as a group? Make one objection to this argument.

Arthur's argument: He suggests that offensive speech may hurt individuals' feelings but doesn't necessarily cause serious, measurable harm to the group as a whole in a way that justifies legal restriction. Objection: Repeated hate speech can marginalize and socially exclude entire groups, causing real, cumulative harm to their dignity, safety, and societal participation, not just individual feelings.

6. John Arthur's claim about insufficient evidence of hate speech causing crimes—objection?

Arthur's claim: We don't have clear evidence that hate speech directly causes criminal actions. Objection: Even without direct causation, hate speech normalizes harmful attitudes that indirectly lead to discrimination, harassment, and violence over time.

definition of argument: validity and soundness

Definition: A set of statements (premises) intended to support a conclusion. Validity: An argument is valid if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Soundness: An argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are actually true

institutional rationality (Altman speech codes)

Institutions (like universities) should create environments that uphold equality and respect, which may justify limiting harmful speech.

why j Arthur thinks freedom of speech is valuable (3 reasons)

Supports personal autonomy. Helps discover truth through open debate. Promotes a healthy, democratic society

mills harm principle

The only reason to restrict someone's freedom is to prevent harm to others, not just because something is offensive or disliked.

utilitarianism and 2 possible objections to it

Utilitarianism: Moral theory that actions are right if they maximize overall happiness. Objections: -Violates individual rights (sacrificing one for the many). -Impossible to calculate all consequences accurately. (measuring happiness is difficult)

10. Jeremy Waldron argues that the term "hate speech" is misleading, and we should talk instead about group defamation or group libel. Why?

Waldron's reason: The term "hate speech" is vague and emotionally charged. "Group defamation" better captures the real harm: spreading false, damaging stereotypes about groups, which undermines their social standing and safety.

11. Waldron maintains that it would be legitimate to outlaw group defamation of a public and lasting kind (such as on billboards or online). What are his reasons? Offer one objection.

Waldron's reasons: Public group defamation damages the dignity and public assurance of equal treatment for the targeted group. It creates a hostile environment and undermines their ability to participate fully in society. Objection: Outlawing such speech risks infringing on free expression, especially when distinguishing between harmful group defamation and harsh but legitimate criticism of groups becomes legally tricky.