Hate Speech Pornography and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine Passage Analysis

0 Comment

The fundamentals of freedom of speech are vastly evident throughout the passage with each having a clear explanation and supporting evidence.
The author does not use the concept of hate speech consistently. The passage begins with the author posing a question of whether hate speech should be banned on campuses. There is no clear conclusion whether hate speech should be prohibited in these learning institutions or not. Rather the author emphasizes the worth of freedom of speech (Weinstein, 1999).
Way to strengthen – The author should provide a means of regulating the freedom of speech to prevent an individual from violating another person right in the name of carrying out their freedom of speech.
Step 7: Do a final map of the main arguments after reconsidering your answer to steps 1 and 4 above. Evaluate the argument. Always decide personally on the adequacy of each premise and conclusion. Does the argument violate any of the criteria for a good argument? Are there any clear and serious fallacies? Can some of the arguments be made stronger (i.e., positively or constructively criticized)?
The above premises violate competence criteria. They contain hasty generalization. Controlling freedom of speech on matters that offend any ethnic group, religion, gender or sexual orientation has a great impact on free speech in that society (Weinstein, 1999).
These arguments violate the Relevancy principle for good argumentation. The relevancy criteria state that we need to provide reasons that bear upon the conclusion, that is, that make a difference to the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Relevancy is violated in this situation when the author states that pornography is a hate speech towards women merely by considering the laws of just one country, Canada.