Our discussion this week is focused on the issue Should hate speech be legally regulated?  This ties directly into the philosophybites.com podcast of an interview with Rae Langton. But it also ties into our presentation of extremist rhetoric, which is often either a form of hate speech, or speech that borders on hate speech.  See the Gutmann reading and the PBS video for more on extremist rhetoric.  

Langton claims that hate speech as commonly conceived includes: 1) speech (words or pictures) that incites hatred of or promote violence against specific groups (she calls this the propaganda function of hate speech); 2) speech designed to attack and wound; verbal assault.    

Jeremy Waldron (in the NPR piece) further clarifies HS by claiming it has to occur in a public venue (so by definition hateful speech at home is not hate speech) and that it must actually be objectively likely to generate hatred and hostility amongst receivers.

Just to be clear, this issue is framed slightly differently in the United States and in Europe and other countries. 

• In the United States, the issue is: Should hate speech be banned or limited?  — that’s because at present the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is usually interpreted as protecting hate speech. 
• Outside the US, and in European nations in particular, however, hate speech is often restricted and prohibited. So the question there might be something like: Are the present prohibitions of hate speech justified?  If you live in Europe, you might want to familiarize yourself with the laws of your country  — and please feel free to share these with the rest of us.

A  related and less legalistic issue, but one which may be closer to home to many of us, is what should our attitudes and responses be to provocative and offensive speech? Especially on college colleges.  Ought we to do whatever we can to separate ourselves from those employing offensive or hateful speech? Or ought we to develop emotional attitudes that enable us to engage with these speakers? I will post an article or two about this in my Announcements.

Three or  more Posts. Per usual, you should post 3 or more times, addressing any of these questions, or a different issue that you see emerging from readings, video and in the discussion. Two of your posts should respond to others’ posts.  Aim for a minimum of 250 + words for all of your posts together (not each individually).  Keep your individual posts short.  As always aim for quality over quantity.

In responding to other posters in your group, make use of one or more of the methods I go over at the end of the First Lecture – for example, employ a scale

Your argument post – 3 statement argument:  One of your posts should start a thread, in which you make an argument.  Create a three statement argument (see week 2 instructions) — with a claim (conclusion), ground and warrant. You can back up the ground or warrant with additional reasons.  But be brief.  

In responding to other posters in your group, make use of one or more of the methods I go over at the end of the First Lecture – for example, employ a scale.  

In responding to any criticisms by others of your viewpoint, try using some of the tips presented in Lecture 2 on Counterarguments.   

Be gentle and of good humor as you engage in this conversation – this will help balance out the heaviness of the subject matter.   Your first post should be up by Friday at 11:55pm; and the discussion will close on Sunday at 11:55pm. 

NEED ASSIGNMENT HELP?

We guarantee plagiarism-free and AI-free writing services. Every assignment is crafted with originality, precision, and care to meet your academic needs.

Ready to get started? Place your order directly on this post!

Let us help you achieve excellence—authentic work, every time.