Question.5039 - Week 5Is Freedom of Speech in Trouble?DiscussionRequired ResourcesRead/review the following resources for this activity:Textbook: Chapters 4, 5, 6LessonArticles:Cory, J. C., Jussim, L., Frey, K., & von Hippel, W. (2023) Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agendaLinks to an external site.. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 120 (48). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301642120 Volokh, E. (n.d.). Permissible restrictions on expressionLinks to an external site.. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression Initial Post InstructionsIntroductionWe speak up. We freely express our views at campus rallies, town halls, and school board meetings— and we don’t take kindly to being silenced. We cherish the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. We proudly claim, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (reference Hall) Lately, however, we are backing away from that claim. “I not only disagree with what you say, but I’m going to stop you from saying it.” "Eighty-four percent of Americans say that some Americans are not exercising their freedom of speech in everyday situations due to fear of retaliation or harsh criticism is either a very (40%) or somewhat (44%) serious problem, according to a new national New York Times Opinion/Siena College Poll. Over half, 55%, of Americans say that they have held their tongue, that is, not spoken freely over the last year because they were concerned about retaliation or harsh criticism, and compared to 10 years ago by 46–21% of Americans are less, rather than more, free to express their viewpoint on politics, and by 35–28% less, rather than more, free to discuss issues of race." (Siena College Research Institute, 2022)Some speech is prohibited, such as a speech that urges someone to break the law. “Incitement” is speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). But speech urging action at some unspecified future time may not be forbidden.For your initial post, discuss freedom of speech and address the questions below.Should limitations on speech go beyond incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats?Should offensive speech be limited or shut down? Follow-up Post InstructionsRespond to one of your peers—try to find someone with whom you disagree. Analyze their post to determine their reasons, then evaluate their post according to the quality of their reasoning. Writing RequirementsMinimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up) Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source) APA format for in-text citations and list of references GradingThis activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Review: Discussion GuidelinesOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReaderReview the specific grading rubric by clicking on the three dots in the upper right corner. Course OutcomesCO 4: Evaluate arguments by applying standard tests. CO 5: Evaluate the role of cognitive bias and fallacies of relevance in critical reasoning and decision-making.CO 6: Apply principles of critical reasoning to political, educational, economic, and/or social issues
Answer Below:
Week xxxxxxxxxx Is xxxxxxx of xxxxxx in xxxxxxx Freedom xx speech xx one xx the xxxxxxxxxxxx rights xx a xxxxxxxxxx society xxxxxxxx citizens xx voice xxxxx opinions xxxxxx in xxxx debate xxx challenge xxxxxxxxx Yet xx recent xxxxx the xxxxxxxxxx of xxxx right xxxx come xxxxx intense xxxxxxxx While xxxxxxxxxxx legal xxxxxxxxxxx such xx incitement xxxxxxxxxx fraud xxxxxxxxx child xxxxxxxxxxx fighting xxxxx and xxxxxxx are xxxxxx accepted xxxxx is x growing xxxxxx about xxxxxxx offensive xxxxxx should xxxx be xxxxxxxxx Some xxxxx that xxxxxxxxxxx speech xxxx is xxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxxxxx harmful xxx protect xxxxxxxxxx communities xxx promote xxxxxxxxxxx However xxxxxxxxx limitations xxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxx categories xxxxx a xxxx to xxxx discourse xx Volokh x d xxxxxxxx courts xxxx historically xxxx cautious xxxxx broadening xxx restrictions xx speech xxx to xxxxxxxx about xxxxxxxxxxx unpopular xx dissenting xxxxx If xxxxxxx begins xx limit xxxxxx based xx perceived xxxxxxxxxxxxx we xxxx silencing xxxxxx critical xx social xxxxxxxx Cory xxxxxx Frey xxx Hippel xxxxxxx a xxxxxxxxxx argument xxxx even xxxxxxxxxx may xxxxxx controversial xxxxx under xxxxxxxxx motives xxxxx the xxxxxxxxx might xx to xxxxxxx harm xxxx censorship xxx hinder xxx open xxxxxxxx of xxxxx and xxxxxxxx scientific xxxxxxxxxxx The xxxxx College xxxx further xxxxxxxx these xxxxxxxx revealing xxxx a xxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx feel xxxx free xx express xxxxx views xxxxx compared xx a xxxxxx ago xxxx over xxxx self-censoring xxx to xxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx In xxxxxxxxxx while xx must xx vigilant xxxxxxx speech xxxx incites xxxxxxxx or xxxx expanding xxxxxxxxxxxx based xx offense xx dangerous xxxxxxxxx speech xxxxxx uncomfortable xxxxxx be xxxxxxxxx with xxxxxxxx not xxxxxxxxxx Free xxxxxx must xxxxxx robust xxxx when xx challenges xxx beliefs xxxxxxxxxxxxxx J x Jussim x Frey x von xxxxxx W xxxxxxxxx motives xxxxxxxx scientific xxxxxxxxxx by xxxxxxxxxx A xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx agenda xxxxxxxxxxx of xxx National xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxx https xxx org xxxx Siena xxxxxxx Research xxxxxxxxx New xxxx Times xxxxx College xxxxxxxx Institute xxxx https xxxx siena xxxxxxxxx E x d xxxxxxxxxxx restrictions xx expression xxxxxxxxxxxxx Britannica xxxxx www xxxxxxxxxx com xxxxx First-Amendment xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMore Articles From Critical Reasoning PHIL 347
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
