Mariam Mukhammad

QFS&D #7

The Case for Censoring Hate Speech by Sean McElwee

pg. 258

1. Sean McElwee brings Jeffrey Rosen and Jeremy Waldron into a conversation with each other
by including quotes and by both people that counteract one another. McElwee not only uses
quotes but also summarizes Rosen's point. However, McElwee proceeds to include Waldron's
comment about hate speech laws preventing attacks on minorities to argue against Rosen's point.

2. By using direct quotations from Rosen, McElwee adds credibility to his own writing. The
quotes help McElwee build onto his own argument by providing specific examples of
occurrences in which hate speech was dealt with by the host site and that almost completely shut
down the conflict in that case. However, McElwee's summarization of Rosen's argument helps
the reader better relate to the point and provides a smooth transition into another portion of his
essay.

3. McElwee believes that Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have the worst problems with hate
speech. He implies that this is due to the websites' lack of regulations that prohibit hate speech
and the fact that most of these websites don't do enough to monitor language as well as make
sure all posts and threads follow their community standards. McElwee suggests that in order to
improve the situation, these websites would have to put in stricter regulations for the information
that is posted and shared as well as simply enforcing the rules against hate-speech that are
already in place.

4. Sean McElwee objects to Rosen's position on free speech because he believes that her idea
that media can manage hate on its own is false. McElwee comments that hate speech cannot
simply disappear from social media on its own. He believes that Rosen's ideas are very similar to
the market fundamentalism that if you get rid of forceful rules, you will get the best results.
However, a study by Humboldt State University showed that hate speech cannot be terminated
naturally.

5. According to Sean McElwee, hate speech has two goals and that is to make all the "bigots"
feel empowered and not alone and secondly to intimidate the targeted group. I agree with that
entirely because in almost all cases, those two come to be the outcomes of all negative speech.
The victims feel foolish and abused while the harassers believe they are in the right because there
are others backing up their harsh words and actions.

6. McElwee sites specific countries worldwide that have put in place strict laws against hate
speech and have not "slipped into totalitarianism" (12) or lost their freedom. Sean McElwee
 Mariam Mukhammad

makes a point that the countries with more rules against hate speech allow more positive
freedoms that can be taken away when you allow people to abuse and intimidate minorities.

7. I think that anyone who uses the Internet or any media and has witnessed hate speech is a
person who can relate to McElwee's article. However, you can tell by Sean McElwee's comment
that "stricter regulation of Internet speech will not be popular with the libertarian-minded citizens
of the United States," (2) that he is gearing his essay more towards the conservative audience.
Nevertheless, you can tell that McElwee wants to reach a broad audience with his comments
towards "women, LGBTQ individuals, and racial or religious minorities" (9) being intimidated
by the public and that it needs to stop. McElwee seems to want to unify people in the fight
against hate speech.