Reference no: EM133234995

1. Do you agree with the analysis of Angus Johnston's claim that we must be for the speech of those that are most under attack is a black/white, either/or fallacy? Does his claim that presents the question "whose speech should we prioritize?" sway away from the real question at hand, being "does free speech protect all speech?"

2. Is the anecdotal clip RR presented of the citizen being attacked by protestors an honest, true example of what would happen if we take Johnston's claim seriously, that we should be against speech of those we hate (or at least, de-prioritize them)?

3. Do you agree with Brandon O'Neil's claim that "pretty much every leap forward in history, pretty much every freedom we enjoy, is a product of individuals having given offense," and therefore free speech should be granted to all ideas, no matter the offense?

4. Do you agree with Brandon O'Neil's claim that if we disallow free speech for Nazi's (or Milo or Richard Spencer, as Johnston alludes to) that this created licensed speech, which "is the end of free speech"?

5. Do you agree with RR that we should allow all ideas to be publicly expressed so that we may addressed, ridicule, and destroy bad ideas and arguments?

6. Do you agree that giving the claim that speech should be censored because of "violent speech" or "hate speech" cannot hold ground because those terms are subjective?

7. Concerning hate speech, do you agree with the following argument on the subjective nature of "hate speech" concerning holocaust denial and rape apologists?

8. Concerning hate speech, do you agree with the following argument that the first amendment protects hate speech?

9. Do you agree with Brandon O'Neil and Bret Weinstein that if we censor bad, violent, and offensive ideas, we merely embolden those who hold them; instead, they should be publicly expressed? Do you agree what the only way to combat ideas it not through censorship but "in public, with reason, rationality, logic, evidence, and consistency," that "the way to rid the world of bad ideas is not by silencing them, it's by discussing them?"

10. Do you agree with the claim made by the guest speaker that spoke during "The Rubin Report" clip that "you can support the restriction on any government intervention of censorship but also giving a green light towards the more informal censorship?" What do you think constitutes as "informal censorship" that would not infringe on free speech?

11. These arguments are in the realm of speech meant for educational/political purposes. But what of censored speech in entertainment? Are some forms of entertainment worthy of censorship? Consider the two examples examined in lecture and give your thoughts here.