There’s no question that social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube can rapidly amplify and circulate hate speech and extremist content. Solutions to this problem are murky, as seen in debates over topics such as cancel culture, free speech, and censorship. In this essay, Jacob Mchangama, a Danish writer and lawyer, argues that an expansive definition of free expression is essential for vibrant democracies. He warns against having too many restrictions on the kinds of speech posted and circulated online.
Jacob Mchangama, “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence,” Persuasion, 6 June 2022
- In the first few paragraphs of his essay, Mchangama introduces an ongoing debate about whether and how to limit free speech online. Use one of the templates from Chapter 1 to summarize this “they say” debate in your own words. What bigger principles, values, or ideas are at stake in this debate?
- Some argue that social media platforms should implement a “zero-tolerance policy” to automatically flag and remove hate speech or extremist language. Mchangama argues that these policies can create their own problems. What are three potential consequences to automated “zero-tolerance” policies on social media platforms? Which consequence do you think is the most dangerous, and why?
- Mchangama carefully connects his ideas using several strategies discussed in Chapter 8. Choose one paragraph from his essay where you think he does a good job using connecting devices. Identify all the connecting devices he uses in this paragraph, including transitions, pointing words, key terms, and repetition.
- Some promote “cancelling” as a response to offensive language or hate speech, while others view cancel culture as a form of censorship that erodes free expression. Look at this post, which summarizes findings from the Pew Research Center’s surveys on how Americans view cancel culture and censorship. What is one significant conclusion you can draw from this research? What in this data surprised you? According to this data, what groups of people do you think would agree with Mchangama’s argument? What data supports this conclusion?
They Say I Blog 
He uses templates that introduce what others are saying. He talks about research from multiple organizations and summarizes what they say. He also uses talks about both sides and how it is an ongoing debate between free speech and extremist violence.
His last paragraph uses a lt of connecting devices. He draws in information from other paragraphs that flows very well from one sentence to the next and within the sentence. He also uses pointing words to draw the attention to initiatives. Most of this information is repeated elsewhere in the article and he uses the last paragraph to summarize it all.
O lot of people do not know what “cancelling” is and the US government is becoming increasingly polarized. People who agree with Mchangama would most likely fall in the middle of political groups, like most of the US population. His argument shows both sides and how they both work and both do not work.
LikeLike
Mchangama uses a few templates from “they say.” One that stuck out to me was the use of the ongoing debate because he explained both sides of the argument. One being that there are extremists who post hate speech and the side of removing all hate speech from online platforms. He shows the conflicts that both sides have by explaining that by setting laws in place to remove hate speech and online terrorism could cause dilemmas for democracies because it limits free speech. However, hate speech can lead to real life harm. I believe that the big principles at stake in this debate are peoples safety from hate speech along with keeping peoples rights.
I think that he does a great job at using connecting devices especially in the last paragraph. He used the “repeat yourself-but with a difference.” Meaning he was able to repeat himself but in a dissimilar manor from how he introduced the debate. He was able to close out his article by talking about what he believes should happen with free speech which is what he talked about in prior paragraphs.
From this “canceling” article it was very apparent to me that peoples views on cancel culture are dependent on their political affiliation. It was also interesting to see the breakdown between countries. Other than Germany many countries had more people believe that things on the internet are taken too seriously. I don’t think that any of this data particularly surprised me. I think that people that want to keep freedom of speech without the addition of laws would agree with this argument because he argues that banning hate speech may make the problem of extreme violence worse.
LikeLike
Frogs or dogs? Its a very interesting idea, frog, while being slimy, adorable and sometimes poisonous,are ideal pets for their low maintenance. Dogs on the other hand have lots of fur that depending on the dog, can shed. Dogs also require consistent exercise and constant attention. In my opinion dog better. Amen.
LikeLike
An expert in words and violence, Susan Benesch demonstrates that people can use words on social media platforms to express or persuade people how they feel. Although, some people are using it for the wrong reasons and instead using it to encourage people to commit a violent act of some kind.
Jacob Mchangama expresses that canceling or prohibiting speech doesn’t always work and we are still seeing these crimes in countries that banned this speech. Therefore, the main solution was for individual media platforms to just ban the violent or not appropriate content. Although, Mchangama argues that this only works to a certain extent because some of the people who were kicked off of those platforms just go to ones that can’t be found by authorities making it harder for the authorities to track the next terrorist attack. His solution is to make social media platforms that encourages trust and to grow our ability to conversate through difficult situations such as terrorist attacks.
LikeLike
Banning hate speech will not stop the act of extreme violence. You have the right to say what you think even though some people take it the wrong way. Many people think of free speech and that they can say whatever they want. However, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. Some people use their words as actions which can be bad. People think they can say whatever they want due to free speech, but in the world, we live in today you have to be very careful about what you say and post to the media. For instance, if you make a post on social media and it has some sort of hate speech and you get backlash and then want to take it down, it was still posted and is out there forever. You have to be careful with every action you make in today’s world. The internet is forever and social media is very powerful.
LikeLike
After reading this article, I would say that I agree with a good amount of Jacob’s points on the banning of hate speech. It has shown that in other countries where it is banned it hasn’t been very effective. This is because these people find other ways to get across their message to the public through more discrete platforms than Twitter or Facebook. I feel that banning hate speech would just give these people more of a reason to committ more harm to people besides just with speech. In other words, they would resort to even more violence. I do also understand and know that there are things you shouldn’t say in certain situations. For instance, it wouldn’t be the best idea to say that you have bomb on a plane. I do think as well that people should be allowed to say what they want even though there will be people that may not like what you are saying. A very recent incident of this is Kanye West’s antisemetic comments on social media. He has been banned on multiple social media platforms and many companies denounced him because of his comments although he has recently been unbanned on Twitter since Elon Musk has taken over the platform. I personally don’t like the things he is saying but the idea of freedom of speech is allowing people to be able to express themselves, meaning even if people may not like it or take it the wrong way, they can still say it.
LikeLike
Jacob Mchangama has strong views on how banning hate speech will not be very effective. However, I disagree because if social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter ban hate speech, then it will be less negatively influential on others. These platforms are the most through which a person may say hateful things because it is behind a screen, and they know they will not get hate back for it. Although they may get hate back, no massive action will be taken against them. For celebrities, the case is different. If a celebrity does or says something that may offend others, there is almost no going back. It might not completely remove hate speech from the country, but it will do something. Even a tiny bit of impact is powerful. America continues to show extreme violence using hate speech. Many use technology and the internet to say offensive things because they are afraid of saying it in the real world. Then why not bring change? Why not ban hate speech? It will surely be effective. If someone posts something offensive, it would be deleted immediately if there was a ban. A ban can cause either significant or little change; however, in the end, at least even a little bit is effective. If one learns not to say something offensive online because it will be banned, one will slowly start applying it in the real world. They will be very used to not saying hateful things. People have the right to say whatever they think, but that does not mean one should say something that targets one’s race, sex, etc. Free speech should be limited to an extent. Although free speech is essential to the country, it allows for hate to be shown. One should not be free to hate.
LikeLike
I agree with Mchangama because as we’ve seen in countries where negative speech has been banned from social media violence is still a thing. People will find ways to get their message across if they really want to. Yes online social media platforms may facilitate the distribution of negative speech it will always be there no matter how hard we try to ban it.
LikeLike
He introduces what others are saying by using templates. Also, he discusses both sides of the ongoing argument between free speech and violent extremism.
If social media take a zero-tolerance policy, it wont stop the hate speech but just continue it on different platforms. People can get more aggressive on the street, or go to platforms that can make finding the terrorist harder to find.
His concluding sentence makes extensive use of connecting words. He incorporates details from other paragraphs and summarizes it at the end.
There are many people who are unaware of what “cancelling” is, and the American government is getting more divided. Like the majority of Americans, those who share Mchangama’s political views would be in the middle of the political spectrum. His argument demonstrates both sides and how they function and how they do not function.
LikeLike
I say that I agree with Jacob Mchangama in that repression can cause more violence to spark. By giving the liberty to have free speech you are giving the liberty for hate speech. There will always be some kind of negative or violence in this world so the question isn’t what can we do to stop it but what can we do to control what the main population won’t see or be affected. The author brings a good point that it is not a good idea for the government to get involved but for large corporations to start cracking down on hate speech and having them be the ones that are strict on the rules on what can and cannot go on the internet.
LikeLike
After reading Mchangama’s article, I would say I agree with a lot of the points that Mchangama made. Banning people’s hate speech online has a big possibility of causing them to react violently and aggressively in response,whether that be on another poorly policed platform or going out of their way to physically harm people in society, in the same way the buffalo shooter broke out into a murderous frenzy based on his racist and hateful views. This is a big reason for how banning hateful speech wouldn’t be effective in a way that would truly make a difference.
One thing people constantly and dangerously misconstrue is the difference between free speech and hate speech. Someone can go online and incite violence or hatefully spew insults and threats against certain groups of people and claim it was their “freedom of speech” like it was no big deal. Yes, we are allowed to fully express ourselves through discourse, even if our views or opinions come to offend or disturb some individuals. But, the moment we start to publicly broadcast the incitement of violence, malice, hostility or discrimination against a certain group of people, that is what starts hate speech. And that is utterly unacceptable.
LikeLike
Mchangama uses templates from the “They Say” articles. He talks about both sides of the argument, being to ban hate speech all together and another and then the extremists who post hate speech. He shows the conflicts between both sides explaining the effects of what would be if certain laws or rules got passed for both sides.
I do believe the most prominent issue is that these people who speak on hate speech will move onto another social platform that doesn’t limit them so whatever they want to speak. Overall it won’t help with getting rid of hate speech, it will just make it so it is harder to track down (which then you can put an end to it little by little).
In the second paragraph of his article, Mchangama starts it off with a transition, introducing a new idea which is against his argument. He goes into expanding more on it, then shifts into how it is used and what it does. Then, he states one more contradiction which sets up the third paragraph. For his pointing words he addresses a lot of who’s responsible for monitoring hate speech online and what online platforms follow (or don’t follow) the Acts he is talking about. Using key terms, Mchangama doesn’t repeat a lot of terms but he does use synonyms of “approach” or “speech”, those being the main points of that paragraph.
A lot of people use many different “definitions” of “canceling” which can become messy and confusing. Depending on the view of the person and their political standpoint, everyone will be different. It wasn’t too different to hear but I do agree with Mchangama that banning hate speech (online) can only increase the possibility of extreme violence.
Overall, Mchangama’s article title pretty much sums it up. Banning hate speech really won’t end extremist violence. Every action has a reaction, in this case we know it won’t be for the better. Sadly there are people in the world who will only see free speech as their hate speech, it all depends on how we look past that and move on from these negative sayings and messages.
LikeLike
In Jacob Mchangama’s article, he clearly states his beliefs in the title: “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence
It would likely make the problem worse”. I happen to agree with him. People HATE being told that they can’t do something, especially in this case where it can borderline be against the first amendment. Private companies don’t have to follow the same legal procedures as the government, so I believe they all need to hammer down on this hate speech THEMSELVES rather than making the government being the one to enforce it.
LikeLike
In discussions of hate speech, one controversial issue has been found: whether or not it should be banned. On the one hand, Parmy Olson argues that acts of extreme hate should be banned altogether. On the other hand, Mchangama contends that for a ” digital sphere that encourages trust and cooperation” to be formed, we will need to rely on “expanding, rather than restricting freedom of expression and access to information.” Others even maintain excessive censorship can limit the exposure of edifying articles. My own view is that we should all have the right to say what we want in order to create a community that can talk about hard things. We must found this community on trust, a desire to do good, and on edifying principles. To create the community we want out of the community we have, there must be a greater population willing to enforce good rather than just prohibit evil.
One consequence Mchangama mentions are an excessive amount of censorship that ultimately leads to the censorship of articles and posts that potentially build people up. Another effect of such “zero-tolerance” policies is that the people posting such hate speech would just move to another platform where they can say what they want without being persecuted for it. Mchangama uses the example of 8Chan as a spot for radicals to express what they feel and connect with others of a like-minded view. Lastly, the consequence I find most destructive because of new “zero-tolerance” policies is that counterspeech, which is often much better at reducing hate speech than banning it altogether, is hindered by those very same policies trying to reduce hate speech altogether.
I think Mchangama uses a great deal of productive connecting phrases in his concluding paragraph. He starts out with a transition, “fortunately” to show that the essay is switching gears and now talking about the potential upside in this debate: That by allowing for a greater deal of free speech and counterspeech we can create a “digital sphere that encourages trust and cooperation.” The pointing word “that” in the quote above is used to show that it is the sphere we create that is what allows trust to fall into our digitally-wired society. Mchangama uses a transition word, “however,” to show that in order to create such a sphere we must rely on expanding our freedom of speech.
I found it most surprising that 56% of Americans said they’d heard nothing or very little about cancel culture as it tends to be all over the news from what I’ve seen nowadays. I would conclude that those who agree in favor of Mchangama’s argument are those affiliated with the republican party or lean republican as they, like mchangama, view cancel culture as an unwanted way to hurt people who don’t deserve it.
LikeLike
1.) Jacob Mchangama uses a “They Say” template to bring in opposing thoughts as well as unbiased research that both supports censoring social media and leaving it untouched. He cites Susan Benesch, an expert on the interaction between words and violence and her “danger speech” that is used on social media to promote white supremacy and jihadist ideals, or the fact that censoring easily accessible platforms increases extremism.
2.) Jacob Mchangama thinks that extremists will migrate to more obscure and dangerous platforms like 4Chan making them harder to track or face an opposing view. (I think this is the most dangerous problem). Another problem is that Higher levels of policing will cause a lack of free speech and less opinions being shared on social media. As well as that automatic hate speech detection don’t always work and that the internet will always be plagued by some form of hate speech or ideals that promote extremism.
3.) I believe the last paragraph does a good job of connecting all of Mchangama’s points through the article and it uses recurring words like extremist freedom, and I like how in his idea of a safer form of media everyone benefits and is able to retain their main goals.
4.) I draw the conclusion that one group of people are more responsible for the cancel culture we see in the media. It surprised me to see so many people thinking cancel culture is a form of censorship when it’s really people voicing their own opinion. To cancel someone, although it might not be the most logical or best thing to do, is someone’s right to voice their own thoughts whether it’s against you or your ideals. If you receive hate online for voicing your thoughts, that’s not censorship. That’s a normal part of stating your thoughts online and you should be prepared for the consequences or backlash of having controversial thoughts. You used your free speech to state your opinion just like the people who disagreed with you and “canceled” you on a social media platform. I think all groups of rational people can agree with Mchangama’s argument striking a middle ground is the best option to help and stop extremist actions on social media while retaining people’s rights to free speech.
LikeLike
Mchangama’s article truly does go into surprising depth about how hate speech and how banning it from different platforms doesn’t actually fix the problem of violence. With all of the different real-world instances of this, I can’t help but say that I agree with him. It’s impossible to ignore hate speech nowadays, and extremist violence is never too far behind.
I think the only way to effectively deal with hate speech is to let the public institutions, or the people, intervene and try to clear any misinformation that the said person had before. Silencing people by banning certain words or phrases hasn’t worked, so now we should try a more in-depth approach.
LikeLike
I say that Mchangama is right. In order to create a digital sphere of trust and a community that is beneficial for everyone, there must be an increase in our freedom of expression. Look at it in the terms of familial relations. As we grow up we may feel constricted to say things that may get us in trouble or things that leave us feeling ashamed to our parents, but as we grow older and more mature we realize that those things never mattered to them in the first place. If we needed to say something to our parents, no matter what it was, they would listen intently because of their love for their child. Likewise, I believe that when we are able to be vulnerable, make corrections when needed, and support each other full-heartedly, we can create the digital sphere of trust and cooperation that our society can benefit from and so desperately needs.
LikeLike
In recent discussions of hate speech on social media platforms, a controversial issue has been whether laws should be set to limit hate speech. On the one hand, some argue that they should be placed. From this perspective, limiting hate speech through laws prevents dangerous ideas, like acts of terrorism, from spreading and becoming viral. On the other hand, such laws would begin suffocating the power of the first amendment of free speech, however, others argue that conspiracy is illegal, which already does this. In the words of Susan Benesch, one of this view’s main proponents is that dangerous speech can, “increase the risk that its audience will condone or commit violence against members of another group.” According to this view, hate speech seems to spark up violence in others. In sum, then, the issue is whether hate speech should be more restricted or it shouldn’t. My own view is that it should be lowered, but not through laws. Though I concede that this will not solve the problem, I still maintain that an effective way to please both sides of the argument would be to encourage more positivity and love on social media, rather than stopping hate speech with more laws, or doing nothing about it. For example, if more posts were made by high authority figures or even the social media platforms itself trying to encourage loving and non violent behavior, it would help the situation, even if only by a little, without sitting back and not fixing anything. Although some might object that it wouldn’t change much, I would reply that even if a few people change their ways, it leaves the world as that much more of a better place. The issue is important because hate speech doesn’t only plague entire nations and wreak destruction, but it also leaves a damaging effect on so many individuals.
The three consequences that Mchangama brings up that would be caused by removing hate speech on social media platforms are that repression of speech will cause outbursts and protests, the laws won’t completely wipe hate speech from the internet, and the high possibility that if banned from large social media platforms, the threat will move to smaller ones, still spreading the idea but without being caught. I think the chance of protests that will be caused by the repression of free speech is the most dangerous of the three because it can become even more violent than the hate speech itself and it’s harder to stop when an even larger group of people protests something.
I admired the use of transitions in paragraph two, where he not only linked the entire paragraph to the previous one through the use of, “understandably,” as the first word, but he also expanded on the original point using, “similarly,” and switched to a whole new point using the transition, “however.” Furthermore, you could easily identify the key terms of the paragraph such as, “regulation of hate speech,” and, “regulatory efforts,” despite the amazing amount of description he placed around them. Lastly, He utilizes pointing words to describe the ideas he presented, and the subjects of each sentence.
One significant conclusion I can draw from this research is that far too many people are inclined toward violence, and that the rates are dangerously high. It surprised me just how much more people were violent after laws had been made against hate speech, and just how much they were willing to do just to prove a point. I would say that not the majority of people would agree with Mchangama, however, the right group of people would.
LikeLike
In regards to Jacob Mchangama’s article, “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence” it is clearly stated in the title itself what his claim is. Responding to his claim I would have to agree with it. Banning something is a sure fire way to cause an eruption of rebellion and many negatives. The argument brought up that I find very effective is that hate speech is protected by the first amendment but more importantly; freedom of expression is associated with less violence which ties into my previous point on rebelliousness.
LikeLike
In Mchangama’s article “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence” he’s big on the idea of government laws making matters worse, which I agree with. When told what to do or what not to do, it makes people want to or do the opposite. Whether the government enforces laws of banning hate, the hate won’t just disappear instead someone will find a way around it. Hate is everywhere and there isn’t really an escape, especially on social media because everyone has something to say about anything and everything.
LikeLike
I say that I agree with Machangama. When you first read the title he already gives you his claim instantly. With having these ideas off against the government makes living worse by having people do the opposite of a certain decision. With that it truly shows how hate speech is covered and saved by freedom of speech being the first amendment. With people being told they can’t do something that would make their next action very irrational as they don’t ever want to be told no to an idea or action. So yes I do agree with him on this claim and idea.
LikeLike
Mchangama does a good job of validating and stepping into the shoes of those who wish to limit hate speech. He acknowledges the potential negative effects of hate speech and references times in history when it has caused problems. While he does properly represent what “they say” he also respectfully asserts his claim. Using evidence from multiple modern countries that have attempted to limit hate speech, he proves that banning hate speech will only fuel the fire and make things worse.
LikeLike
In the article, “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence”, Mchangama claims that by censoring what people are allowed to say on social media, we will only make the violence worse. He gave evidence taken from Europe around the time when hate speech was banned to support his claim. I would say that I agree with what Mchangama claims. Once someone bans something, there are people who always find a way around it. There would be an explosion of hatred and anger toward those who are trying to get rid of people’s expressions. As we have seen before, there would be violent protests in order for people to share what they think. Extremists are called extremists for a reason and would resort to different types of harmful violence. I believe that by not taking away people’s freedom of expression, there would be less violence around the US.
LikeLike
Banning hate speech will not stop the act of extreme violence. You have the right to say what you think, even though some people take it the wrong way. Many people think of free speech and that they can say whatever they want. However, there is a big difference between free speech and hate speech. Some people use their words as actions which can be bad. People think they can say whatever they want due to free speech, but in the world today you have to be very careful about what you say and post to social media. For instance, if you make a post on social media and it has hate speech in it and you get backlash, and then you want to take it down, it was still posted and is out there forever. You have to be careful with every action you make on social media these days because the internet is forever and social media is very powerful.
LikeLike
I would say that after reading this piece, I agree with most of Jacob’s points regarding the outlawing of hate speech. It has been demonstrated that it hasn’t been very successful in other nations where it is prohibited. This is due to the fact that these individuals utilize platforms other than Twitter or Facebook to spread their message to the general public. I believe that outlawing hate speech would only encourage these individuals to harm others in ways other than just expression. Or, to put it another way, they would use even more force. I am aware that there are some things you should never utter in a given circumstance. Saying that you have a bomb on a plane, for instance, would not be the wisest course of action. Despite the fact that some people might not agree with what you are saying, I believe that everyone should have the freedom to express themselves. Kanye West’s antisemitic remarks on social media are an extremely recent example of this. Despite the fact that he was recently unbanned from Twitter since Elon Musk took over the social media platform, he has been banned from numerous social media sites and has been condemned by numerous businesses due to his remarks. Though I personally disagree with what he is saying, the concept of freedom of speech means that anyone can speak their mind, even if others find it offensive or take it the wrong way.
LikeLike
After reading this article and the original, I can see why banning hate speech is the wrong direction. The “Strict Parents make Sneakier Kids” statement can easily explain this situation. By restricting people, you only force them to find a different way to do it. This has also been shown in most literature, such as 1984. Hate and the resulting language that comes from it will not be solved by the bounds of stipulations, people will find a way around any constraints if only to prove a point.
LikeLike
In Mchangama’s paper, they say that banning people who use hate speech will do nothing in society. In fact, it would just make the problem worse. The things that are at stake here are the relationships between the people in the world and in the family.
The three potential consequences that having a zero-tolerance policy are that repression of speech will cause people to retaliate, the laws won’t remove all the hate speech of social media, and the people who get banned off of major websites will move on to smaller websites such as 4Chan where there is no moderation. I would say the most dangerous possibility would be the people retaliating. If the people get mad enough, they might storm the buildings of major social media companies, causing destruction and chaos.
The paragraph that I think Mchangama did the best at connecting his thoughts is this one:
“On the contrary, studies suggest that freedom of expression is associated with less rather than more violent extremism, terrorism, and social conflict in democracies. A 2017 study concluded that in Western Europe, violent far-right extremism was accelerated by “extensive public repression of radical right actors and opinions.” Other research has come to similar conclusions, suggesting that free speech is more likely to serve as a safety valve than a lightning rod for extremist violence and that people are more likely to view violence as justified when governments repress free expression.”
Not only does he relate back to his previous paragraphs, he uses words such as ‘Other,’ ‘On the contrary,’ and ‘Similar conclusions.’
The most significant conclusion I could draw is that the world is split pretty much down the middle when it comes to whether or not people take things too seriously. According to the data provided, I believe that the ideological right would mostly agree with Mchangama.
LikeLike
Jacob Mchangama talks about how Several terrorists have explicitly cited that they’re using other Terrorist attacks as their own inspiration for their terrorist attacks and with this Jacob explains that social media is prompting a big incline in terrorist attacks. These attacks are being seen by extremism and mainstream social media coming from Mostly Europe and there will be an online safety act placed in the United Kingdom and a digital service act from the European Union, But not only does social media cause the incline of these terrorist attacks but dangerous speech increase is the risk that people will condone or commit violence against members of other groups. But laws for hate speech are on shaky grounds because of freedom of speech.
Big extremist and most white supremacists often go to smaller platforms messaging services when banned from a mainstream platform which doesn’t end that person’s terrorism that they’re spreading it just goes somewhere else. Also another fact to having high restrictions about freedom of speech would suffocate pluralism and being that Europe is democratic having a lack of freedom of speech like this would change the whole dynamic. And lastly people will just get more violent from the zero tolerance Policy and there might even be protesting Like a lot of protesting. I would have to say that the Third Fact I mentioned will be the most dangerous Consequence because of violence physical violence in the street which will be even worse than violence on social media because it’s face to face and with the protesting as well it will be very dangerous.
3.I really like how the author in the second paragraph uses a transition debating his argument And then expanding on his research And contradicting it sets up his third paragraph.
One thing that there’s to conclude about the research from the article is that trying to cancel free speech in Europe would cause a lot of problems because of the democratic dynamic and there would be a lot of physical violence and protesting from this I agree that some type of action should be taken but at the moment I don’t know what that action would be. Something that surprised me from the data was that a lot of these terrorist attacks were coming from parts of Europe and what’s crazy about that is I’ve gotten terrorist attacks from Europe As well so it’s very interesting to find out research that attacks like these happen and come from Europe. My conclusions would be that a majority of people might not agree with the author but there is a right group out there that would.
LikeLike
Mchangama discusses the topic of censorship for hate speech in a very understanding tone. It’s easy to see what both sides of the argument on this think. Although he states his claim already in the title before we can read what he’s really talking about, I think it fits in really well and works to his advantage, preparing us, the viewers, for the context he will provide. For the most part, I agree with what he says: Banning hate speech will not fix the problem of hate speech and the events it causes. I’d like to compare it to when a parent tells their child not to do something, like touch a hot pot, because it’ll hurt them, and the child will do it anyways just out of spite. If you strictly forbid certain kinds of speech, even if they are bad, people will continue to do it elsewhere and create more violent acts just “out of spite.” As Mchangama says, they feel more justified in their violence.
LikeLike
In Jacob Machangama’s Article “Banning Hate Speech won’t End Extremist Violence,”He claims that many approaches foreign nations have used to prevent Extremist Violence end in even worst situations. One point he makes is that banning or restricting speech causes more harm than good. Hate speech doesn’t have that bad of an outcome compared to restricted speech. He also reminds us that it goes against our country’s constitution, freedom of Speech! I totally agree with his argument and would like to add that even if hate speech was illegal, Extremists would find another way. In conclusion, banning hate speech would not stop the problem. Which is the summary of his argument.
LikeLike
I agree with Jacob Mchangama. Jacob’s essay investigates why other countries haven’t successfully banned hate speech. He contends that banning hate speech will just encourage more harmful behavior and that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, regardless of how insulting they may be to others. It’s vital to exercise caution while making statements and submitting content to the media because of the permanence of the internet and the effect of social media. Even if others don’t agree with it, freedom of speech is the foundation of it.
LikeLike
Mchangama makes a great point when he talks about the problems that banning hate speech is causing instead of solving it. At the end of his writing, he says, “the most effective strategy would be to develop trustworthy public institutions that can identify potential violent extremists and intervene before it’s too late, create a digital sphere that encourages trust and cooperation rather than outrage and polarization and strengthen our collective ability to engage in controversial and difficult conversations.” I completely agree with what Machangama is suggesting because when you are trying to force hate speech out of society, it backfires, and causes more violence. The only way, like Mchangama says, to really make violence less of a problem is to teach trust and create spaces where people will choose to obey instead of trying to force those laws upon them.
LikeLike
I agree with Mchangama that hate speech is unwanted and unneeded. Though being a realist there are ways to limit hate speech but it would be near impossible to ban it. Sure, you can ask large social media companies to better monitor hate speech but keep in mind there are well over 4 billion people on social media. Companies like Twitter and Facebook could “police hate speech”, but what do they gain from this extra work. Jacob Mchangama speaks on changing government and large companies though for these large money monsters, they are not benefited in any way. Therefore his ideas and solutions are delusional and unrealistic. Therefore banning hate speech would make extremist violence worst.
LikeLike
I for the most part agree with what Mchangama has said and described about the banning of hate speech. His points show that it is easier for violent extremists to be birthed from the banning of their speech on social media platforms like Facebook because they will just fester in another like 4Chan. Now this is true to a certain extent,however I think that it is a good thing to monitor some of the speech going around, and that it should be snuffed out if it gets too extreme. Especially if it turns violent. But in the end people should be allowed to speak their mind even if you or I may disagree, and there will always be extremists no matter what you do. The best thing we can do is to let them speak their mind online so they don’t become even more extreme and switch to violence.
LikeLike
After reading Mchangama’s article I tend to agree with a lot of his points. Extremist violence is something that is very hard to stop since so many people have so much hate. Since everyone has different opinions it’s hard to find a clear line of what people might find offensive. Even though countries may have laws on hate speech it doesn’t prevent the violence from happening and if anything it makes it hidden which gives more opportunity for surprise attacks. With free speech you are able to speak your mind but now it may have a bit of a repercussion if it is offensive to a big group of people. It is very important for us to find a way to stop the violence from hate because there is a big difference between hating someone and hurting them because you hate them.
LikeLike
I agree with Mchangama’s claim that banning hate speech would make things even worse. If you tell someone that they aren’t allowed to do something, oftentimes they will want to test the waters to see what results would come from their actions. I can understand the frustration that comes with being unable to say what you want to say, however hate speech and violent attacks would make things worse as well.
LikeLike
In his ambitious article, “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence,” Jacob Mchangama claims what the title might suggest: the censorship of hate speech and extremist content will not stop the more violent acts of terrorism with which it is associated. He makes the point that these extremists, upon being kicked off popular social media sites, tend to migrate to smaller sites with lower levels of moderation. This, in turn, creates an environment filled with unfiltered extremists and a police force with a lessened ability to predict terrorist attacks or track these people down in the occurrence of such an event. While Mchangama presents a solid point to his side, I still do not believe that it is ethical to leave harmful statements about certain demographics up for everyone to see. For one, people who are members of these targeted demographics may find that reading hateful things about people who are similar to them removes or dampens their sense of humanity and belonging. In fact, in 2020, suicide was the third most common cause of death among Black Americans, according to Laurie Fickman’s composition, “Racial Discrimination Linked to Suicide,” implying that racial discrimination and hate speech play a role in the suicide of Black people in the United States. On an even larger scale, as Mchangama brought up in the introduction of his article, hate speech can light a fire within someone who already has prejudicial tendencies and persuade them to act on their beliefs in the form of violence. This is very commonly seen in war propaganda, namely the antisemitic imagery used during World War II and the evidence pointing to its contribution to the Jewish casualties that ensued. When an outspoken person decides to preach bigotry to like-minded others, it can kindle the hatred within them and induce violence. Words are powerful. How much are we truly willing to give up in favor of the first amendment?
LikeLike
While I do believe that hate speech is a controversial topic that is getting out of hand, especially on social media, I don’t believe it should be banned. Hate speech, to some is a way of therapy, and taking it away can cause people to go crazy and act out in irrational ways. Jacob Mchangama supported this by stating that studies indicate that freedom of expression is associated with less rather than more violent extremism, terrorism, and social conflict in democracies.
LikeLike
I think that the zero tolerence policy is a good idea. the only problem with it is that it could get a bit tricky to code and program and might anger some people but if it can save a life it would definitley be worth it. I think in this case the benefit definitely outweighs the cost. His last paragraph uses many connecting devices and connecting words. He adds details from previous paragraphs and gives a summary of it at the end. I think cancelling and cancel culture are two very different things that are very subjective from person to person and are a double sided sword, they can be good and bad. If we wanted to moderate it and make it great it would take many people to do this and doesn’t seem to feasible but if we had other way to moderate it would be good.
LikeLike
Jacob Mchangama, in his article, “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence,” recently suggested that the effort to remove hate speech from all platforms of media will only make matters worse. I happen to agree with Mchangama’s claim, in that while observing recent years, it is apparent that when a group of people gets their content removed on social media for “hate speech,” a massive uproar follows. An uproar is not what is required in a nation with already intense, political turmoil.
Mchangama also suggests that “zero-tolerance” policies can create their own problems when it comes to hate speech. These problems including, accidental removal of empowering speech, flooding of hate speech to smaller platforms, and impeding the efforts of law enforcement and other institutions to predict acts of violence. I disagree with Mchangama on this point. I don’t think that any of these are problems, considering that what the left interprets as “hate speech,” doesn’t appear like hate speech at all to me. That being said, I don’t think any of these are real problems and I would also argue that the biggest problem is censorship in general.
In the article, I saw great use of connecting devices that really made the text easy to follow. In paragraph 9, he uses transitions such as “however,” (to indicate a change in direction) and “additionally” (to indicate a follow-up point). He also uses pointing words. For example, “To a significant extent, this has already happened” (para. 9, bold added), to point back to the previous point talked about in the paragraph before. He also uses repetition to drill the topic and its meaning into the minds of the reader. Such words include, “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “platforms.”
In one of Pew Research Center’s surveys on how Americans view cancel culture and censorship, it was found that 75% of Democrats believed “censorship of hate speech” (cancel culture), held people accountable for their actions, whereas in contrast, 56% of Republicans believe that censorship punished people who didn’t deserve it. I predict that most Republicans will agree with Jacob Mchangama, in that censorship does no good for our country, and I also believe that most Democrats will disagree with Mchangama.
LikeLike
I agree with Mchangama and his viewpoint. He makes it clear from the very beginning what he thinks, and I agree with what he says. A freedom of expression is what is most important, and when it is repressed it can garner justifications for any extreme and violent actions. And people seeing actions like that as something justified because their freedom of expression is repressed is the exact opposite of what is desired.
LikeLike
In the article “banning hate speech wont end extremist violence Jacob Mchangama makes his point that Putting a zero tolerance policy on online sites wont stop hate speech as they will go to other sites to use such speech but it does limit what users who are not hate speeching can do because of the restrictions that apply to the hate speech restrictions. he also claims that it can take away from the diversity online. I think that all the points he makes are correct, but I do believe that we do need to become more strict with what we allow online as there are younger audiences present whether we like it or not and along with that there are some people who may see the hate speech and that could be the tipping point for serious issues such as suicide or even violence.
LikeLike
In the article, “Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence” Mchangama poses us with an uprising problem. As we recognize the increase of hate-infused violence mixed with online virality, Mchangama offers perspective from different solutions to the issue, all while providing his own say in the conversation. He does a good job of showing the sides of censorship to even banning hate speech online, all while even acknowledging potential consequences. Throughout the article he found a good balance of what they say to what he says, and overall made a good read.
LikeLike
Statistics have shown that banning hate speech is not the solution to ending extremist violence, and I agree. Mchangama brought forward a study about what happened in Germany after they used the Network Enforcement Act, and the right-wing extremist violence actually went up significantly. This is proof that it does not work so I believe there is no point in still trying to enforce it, if it literally will not improve the violence. This also reminds me of the saying that talks about if you take something away from someone, they are going to want it even more. If you ban hate speech and put a bunch of people in a place where they feel silenced, the anger will only worsen. The violence and hate speech will still happen, just on different websites and places.
LikeLike
1:The biggest principle at stake is the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment talks about freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. The United States values the sense of free will and freedom. Restricting what you say is pushing against it. But the other hand, hate speech isn’t ok, and the people who own the social media platform have the right to limit what you can say.
2:It could flag speech that could be seen as hate speech, but couldn’t necessarily be considered hate speech. A computer glitch could happen. The last problem is that this act could encourage people to go somewhere else and write hate speeches about the media platform.
3:The second paragraph did the best in terms of connecting in my opinion.
It uses connections like,” similarly”, “understandably”, and “however”.
4:The main conclusion of this I can draw is that people are quick to violence and fight each other. Doesn’t have to be with fists, but can be words.
LikeLike
Although Limiting hate speech online may eradicate certain types of harm and right-wing extremism online, (contributing massively to online safety), extensive research shows that this may actually increase violence associated with these causes in real life. Restricting the speech of these people, although hypothetically a valid solution, will most likely give them what they view as justification for these crimes, because they feel their free speech is repressed by the government. In short, “they” say that although limiting hate speech online would make the internet a safer place, but reality a more dangerous one.
Some potential negative consequences to an automated “ zero- tolerance policy” are as follows: One, because this policy is automated, it does not understand the meaning and context in which certain words and phrases often associated with hate are used. Meaning in the process of deleting a racist tweet, it will also delete an anti-racist response.This limits all speech, not just hate speech.
Two, Kicking certain people off of platforms because of their overexpression of hateful views, though it will make that platform a better place, will cause these people to turn to more dangerous and obscure outlets. Possibly unregulated platforms with others that share these outlooks, feeding on one another’s hate, leading to more violence and attacks. This makes law enforcement’s job of finding these people online and preventing these attacks so much harder.
The author’s use of transitions and connecting devices is something to be noted. The pointing devices do an excellent job of drawing attention to the main focus. This all perfectly stitches together the key phrases.
According to the statistics, I think that a few people from almost every group would agree with the author for different reasons. For example, republicans would probably agree that limiting hate speech means limiting free speech. And democrats would probably agree that a “zero tolerance” policy that bans anti-racist comments in the process of deleting racist ones is harmful, and should not be in motion.
LikeLike
The article that Jacob Mchangama wrote mainly talks about hot hate speech should be policed and cancellation will help the issue. However, in my opinion, I believe that policing and cancellation will not prevent hate speech or violence. While I can understand why some may believe that removing “hate speech” is beneficial, I also see how it can truly worsen any situation. As mentioned in this article, restriction of speech can lead to over-limitation, where powerful voices will no longer be heard. When powerful and influential voices aren’t heard, people can’t learn more about different things, they can’t be exposed to different point of views. If someone gets offended by somebody’s opinion, the opinion shouldn’t be canceled. Life isn’t all rainbows and butterflies, and “cancel culture” is trying to make it seem that why by silencing important views.
LikeLike
The first few paragraphs of Mchangama’s essay begin with the “they say” perspective on the debate of the limit of free speech online. Starting with the perspective of politicians and various other experts say that they “call for tougher regulation of social media and hate speech”. As a result of this call to action, many Acts were made in countries worldwide. These Acts include the Online Safety Act, the United Kingdom and Digital Services Act, and the German Network Enforcement Act. The issue that arises from these Acts is: how far will the world go? At what point does limiting hate speech then impede people’s natural rights? If we speak out against these Acts to protect our right to freedom of speech will that count as hate speech and then be suppressed? We face the fact that a few poisoned apples will destroy ideas, the oppression of values, and the dictation of principals in the worst-case scenario. This is what is at stake in this debate.
A problem that emerges with the “zero-tolerance policy” is who gets to dictate what is hate speech or extremist language. There are instances where the world has gone so far down a rabbit hole that someone must speak up and open the eyes of the people. The words they may use can be considered radical and extreme, but if we censor their comments we only live in a world of painful ignorance. In some cases “zero-tolerance” can be considered bullying. Boiling it down, it is someone showing that they don’t like what was said and then getting rid of it. think that the ignorance of the people is the most dangerous. The “zero-tolerance policy” gives too much power letting them decide what should be said and the people are left without the full picture and full understanding.
The last paragraph on the second page demonstrates the strategies discussed in Chapter 8. Mchangama connects the previous topic of the shooting in Buffalo and the various Acts mentioned previously. He uses various transition phrases such as “thus”, “indeed”, “and yet”, “notably”, and “the following year”.There are tactical uses of pointing words throughout the paragraph, and repetition of key ideas/terms.
From reading and analyzing the data given from the Pew Research Center’s surveys I can conclude that the data is almost evenly split on both sides. I was surprised at how many people had never heard of the phrase “cancel culture”. I think that the group that would support Mchangama’s argument are those who believe that censorship is wrong and that suppressing it only makes it worse. The data collected from point 5 support this view from those who believe that many people often take censorship way too seriously and also those who think that people should be able to speak their minds freely.
LikeLike
I agree with Mchangama because I don’t think that banning hate speech will stop violence and terrorist attacks. I also agree that it will cause even more problems, and will make even more people angry. I also believe that we should have our freedom of speech. I think that banning hate speech would necessarily take away those rights but if hate speech is banned I could see it happen where there becomes more and more restrictions, which would very quickly take away those rights. In conclusion I think that we should not ban hate speech because it will only create more problems and not fix any, and could lead to us losing our freedom of speech.
LikeLike
Jacob Mchangama writes about the topic of hate speech in relation to extremist violence. He has a strong opinion that banning hate speech would be an ineffective way of trying to stop extremist violence, and I agree with what he’s arguing for. No matter how much the government tries to step in and suppress or ban hate speech, there is no way to truly stop it. People will always find a way around it and get what they want and do what they want. Trying to solve the problem of extremist violence by suppressing the peoples’ speech will make them more angry in the process, causing more problems than creating a solution. We’ve already gotten a taste of free speech and had made rules to protect that right, to try and take that away would not be a proper way of dealing.
LikeLike