6 thoughts on “Blog Post #13: The Case for Censoring Hate Speech (McElwee)”

1. 

   One of the strongest aspects that I noticed reading McElwee’s piece is when he dismantles the opponent’s attempt to use slippery slope against hate speech ban. He said those countries such as Canada that ban hate speech never fall in totalitarianism. The “so-called” freed countries are rather controversial because some people prioritize negative liberty such as freedom of speech over positive liberty. However, I found his proposal about adopting the European ban policy questionable where it focused on eliminating “hate” only. Offense and argument can easily escalate into hate if the government doesn’t intervene.

2. 

   I think the strongest aspect of McElwee’s piece was when he pointed out that “Free speech isn’t an absolute right.” He thinks that just because freedom of speech is allowed, it was not meant to target any individuals or groups. He believes that once a negative speech is spoken, no matter what positive speeches are spoken afterward, it will not help the victims that much because the harm was done already. I think the weakest aspect of his piece was when he pointed out about adopting a “European-model hate speech policy, one not aimed at expunging offense, but rather hate.” I thought this was weak since hate won’t go away just because the policy stated that it is unacceptable.

3. 

   I believe that the one strongest aspect of McElwee’s piece was when he stated that “free speech isn’t an absolute right.” I think the author is trying to say that you have the right to speak whatever you want, but it does not mean that you have the power to hurt others. You are free to say negative comments but you do not the right to say it. I also think that when McElwee said that “hate speech is not going to disappear from Twitter on it’s it own,” it is a strong aspect of Mc Elwee’s speech because once a negative comment is posted online, hate and damage are done. There’s going to be people who are going to agree with it. By deleting the comment is not going to help the problem because those who agree with it will also post more of those comments, and sometimes by deleting comments like these is going to bring more attention to the hate. What I find that is weak is when the author said, “the goal is for companies to adopt a European-model hate speech policy.” I think that violence is still going to happen even if there’s a hate speech policy and it might be even worse.

4. 

   I think the strongest aspect of McElwee’s piece is how people use freedom of speech in the wrong way. Throughout the story, I think McElwee addresses the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. People on social media use freedom of speech to tell about their life and their stories but it creates a bad environment. Arthur Schopenhauer stated that the freedom of the press should be prohibited but the opposite is happening on social media. The dialogues have moved online where people can say hate speech easily but I think people’s hate speech is just causing some division among people like it was in the past. It shows the racism and differences among people still exists today

5. 

   I loved the part about “free speech isn’t an absolute right”. Author believes that freedom and speech freedom doesn’t allow anyone to speak badly about something and offend someone’s feelings. It reminded me the words my grandmother always tells me: “speak with kindness, or keep ur words shut”. From my early childhood she explained me the power of words and mentioned that it is better to explain ur offend or madness in more polite way. It really takes few words to broke someone inside. That is why I agree both with author and my grandma!
   Regarding the weak part, I think European ban model based on “hate” only won’t make much effort in fighting with offense.

6. 

   I think the strongest aspect of McElween piece is what the impact of what hate speech does. For me, I only saw how it makes others feel bad by saying such things. I didn’t notice by putting hate speech online, you allow other bigots to see that they aren’t alone. What I think is one of his more weaker points is that he suggests that hate speech should be left for companies/organizations to deal with, not the government or smaller interest groups. Personally, it doesn’t make sense for companies to do such a thing because it’s not their job to monitor what is being posted on their site.

Comments are closed.