A key skill in philosophy is the ability to critique an argument, but you must first be able to correctly and succinctly describe the argument at hand. Hence, you will write a brief summary (précis) of the
argument in one of two articles (choose Arthur or Altman). Your précis must be no more than 500 words. Start by asking what the conclusion of the article is, then work your way back to identify the
reasons for the respective author’s conclusion. Now write a succinct and purely descriptive (i.e., not evaluative) summary. Do not use quotations. It is all about paraphrasing, clarity, brevity, and conceptual structure.
You will read either page 370-380 on the PDF titled Sticks and Stones by John Arthur or pages 381-386 by Altman titled Speech Codes and Expressive Harm.
Please write about 400-500 words but do not exceed even one word from 500.
Sticks and Stones by John Arthur
In Sticks and Stones, John Arthur comprehensively reviews some of the reasons underscoring the need for the government to protect free speech and dispense with legal policies that curtail such liberties. The author surmises that upholding the aforementioned civil liberty harbors numerous social advantages. He offers commentary that opposes the use of censorship and hate messages in an attempt to support free expression. Arthur (2014) argues that tolerance to varying opinions enables people to learn the truth concerning various issues in society (p. 371). Indeed, freedom of opinion is essential as it fosters knowledge amongst individuals in the community. Like Mills, the author ascertains that unrestricted free speech creates a suitable platform that appreciates the open exchange of ideas and criticism, thus facilitating the growth of knowledge among populations.
Free speech is equally essential to forming a free, fair, and democratic government. Arthur (2014) claims that free and just elections are promoted by freedom of opinion because candidates can debate and criticize their policies. With such liberty, political candidates can develop objective policies that account for the best interests of the masses. Liberty to speak without restrictions enables people to achieve independence (Arthur, 2014). The author equally argues that free speech offers people the potential to lead out lives chosen by themselves and not the system or society. Thus, freedom of expression bars one from living a life of coercion.
Protection of the right to free speech is equally essential because it is a basic human need and want. Arthur ascertains that free speech mirrors human equity, individuality, and independence and should be supported accordingly (Arthur, 2014). Hate speech is a broad term; hence, its adoption within the legal context is ambiguous. Advocates of censorship of free speech increasingly fail to account for expression of words constituting acts of hatred in social circles (Arthur, 2014). Instead, censorship is warranted provided it falls within narrowly-defined categories. The Supreme Court declared that hatred incitement censorship is solely tenable under different constitutionally unprotected categories. Such categories can entail incitement to disorder, yelling obscenities without social value in public, and speaking fighting words.
Despite the author’s support for freedom of expression, he again criticizes it by claiming it has two weaknesses. Censorship threatens the essence of removing speech restrictions because imposing civil and criminal penalties subsequently undermines the value of free speech. Consequently, censorship of free speech prohibits the use of a broader spectrum of words, which eventually restricts the normal usage of previous innocuous word expressions (Arthur, 2014). Nonetheless, hate messages place minority groups in more danger of political subjugation. In all, Arthur concludes that language banning lacks well-defined criteria outlining relevant justifications underscoring what needs to be censored. He argues that censorship of speech lacks definitive accounts of harm and offense, group harm, or cumulative harm to self-esteem.
Reference
Arthur, J. (2014). Sticks and stones. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, 4.
