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 
I think mchangama makes very good points on why trying to outright ban all hate speech is a bad idea. He makes it clear that even though Hate speech can cause a lot of harm, it is a lot easier to deal with it in the open than having it hid away on lesser known websites. I say that free speech is still super important to have as it lets people know what you think and opens up to possible counter debate that can help you maybe understand more about the situation or more on what others may not.
LikeLike
This article describes the effect that social media has in hate speech. It tells how even when banned from main social media platforms, the people who take part in the hate speech still find lesser known social media sites to communicate with each other. Reading this article has shown me more information on a topic I didn’t know even existed. This article provided background and developmental points. The article adds to the existing conversation providing both fact and opinion. I believe that this article opened many doors for those who want to participate in the conversation in the future.
LikeLike
Banning hate speech may seem like a logical step towards curbing extreme violence and hatred in society, but it is not a complete solution. While hate speech can certainly contribute to creating an environment that fosters violence and hatred, it is not the sole cause. There are a multitude of complex factors that contribute to extreme violence, such as social and economic inequality, mental health issues, and access to weapons. Furthermore, banning hate speech can also have unintended consequences, such as limiting free speech and creating a backlash from those who feel their rights are being infringed upon. In order to truly address extreme violence, a multi-faceted approach is necessary that addresses the root causes of the issue and takes into account the complexities of human behavior and society.
LikeLike
I agree with Mchangama that banning hate speech will not solve the root issues behind extremist violence. I think that even though hate speech is extremely harmful, taking away extremists’ freedom to say these things could cause them to do something even more harmful. I agree with what Mchangama said about putting more time and resources into sorting through what hate speech/threats may lead to an act of violence so it can be prevented.
LikeLike
After reading Jacob Mnchangama’s “banning hate speech won’t end extremist violence” I can say that I concur with many of his points. Not only would it be extremely difficult to outlaw hate speech altogether, but doing this would also violate the 1st amendment. I agree with his assertion that prohibiting hate speech would not significantly advance their initial goal of ending extremist violence but it could possibly make it worse. Overall I agree that if we want to end hate speech we would need to have more reliable institutions.
LikeLike
You would think that because of how much hate speech there is on social media, the social media companies would limit what is able to be said on social media in regards to hate speech and terrorism. Ideas seen on social media are always going to be there and will always be able to be accessed and argued about for a long time to come until the issue is resolved. Because of this, many politicians and people in other countries have tried to limit how hate speech is shared, calling it a legal responsibility to be taken care of.
Banning hate speech online or in public isn’t going to stop it from happening. In fact, the more hate speech is banned, the more people commit terrorist attacks because they have no other way to express their hate. By banning it online, you ban the people from taking their “anger” or “hate” out in a way less harmful form rather than physical harm. Another consequence would be that restrictions won’t prohibit everything, people will come up with new ways to promote their thoughts on social media by using different terms and words. Lastly, people would try to more fully input themselves into the political side of the spectrum because they can’t let out their anger somewhere else. The issue would be more politically focused than it already is. The consequence I think is the most dangerous and most likely to happen is people creating more issues physically through terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks hurt people physically, emotionally, and mentally and can change their lives forever.
The 2nd paragraph uses 2 connecting words that help connect the story together and give different opposing points. The connecting words seen in that paragraph are “and” and “however”. “And” adds more onto a thought, therefore further expanding it. “However” is usually used as a contradictory point and helps to again, further expand a thought and helps the writer validate, in a way, their opinions and helps them flip-flop between their different opinions about a certain topic. The author also uses the words “similarly” and “including”. The word “similarly” is used as a way to add onto a point by using a similar point or to make a reference. The word including can be used to expand, often giving real world examples to explain.
One conclusion that I can draw from this research is that many find “cancel culture” as a way of contradicting freedom of speech because some people can’t be respectful online. Many people on the Pew Research Center’s data expressed that they saw “cancel culture” as a way of taking away their freedom of speech to hold people accountable for their actions, but it won’t necessarily stop it from happening, A better way to stop hate speech will be to call people out about it online, rather than just punishing everyone by restricting their freedom of speech. Conservative Republicans and others will agree with Mchangama’s argument because they believe that censorship is limiting people’s freedom of expression online-the ultimate expression place- and that by doing so there will be more violent expressions of hate because people who promote and spread hate speech cannot do it online. On the diagram from #3, it shows that Conservative Republicans had the lowest percentage of people who believed that cancel culture is used to hold people accountable for their hate speech, which shows that they believe that canceling expression online won’t change the amount of hate speech or actions being spread. It will just become more violent, which will change people’s lives in a negative way more than hate speech will.
LikeLike
Mchangama does a good job of validating and stepping into the shoes of those who wish to limit hate speech. After reading his piece I would have to say I agree with most of his points regarding the outlawing of hate speech. He acknowledges the potential negative effects of hate speech and references times in history when it caused problems. While he does represent what “they say” he also respectfully asserts his claim. He does say that banning hate speech will just make things worse, and he has evidence from different countries.
LikeLike
After reading Jacob Mchangama I say I would agree with most of his points. Banning hate speech won’t stop extreme violence. We have a something called free speech which lets us speak about whatever we want. But there is also dangerous speech which is speech that would likely cause violence of some sorts. Social media is a main spot for these types of speeches.
There’s a lot of dangerous speech on social media that can spread to lead to violence. Banning hate speech on social media platforms won’t stop extreme violence. First of all, if you ban hate speech on social media platforms people will find away around that and start dangerous speech and find ways to create a new way to post hate speech. Another point I agree with Jacob is that Norway, New Zealand, and Germany all banned hate speech but Germany extreme violence went up by 40%.
LikeLike
I agree with Jacob Mchangama in the fact that more restrictions on hate speech only causes more to generate. However, I do believe that companies or laws should began putting labels on hate speech. As I fear new people who are indoctrinated into such fallacies don’t realize the content they are consuming. And labeling such atrocious posts with a short “This post may contain hate speech (or language)” that could not only deter new commers from joining such a gross ideology, but also label said posts to make it easier for people to monitor in order to prevent speech from becoming action. It could even make it where the original creator won’t be notified that their video or post has been marked as hate speech. I believe 4chan was mentioned in the article, and while I have never used the website myself, I know they actually have message boards meant to contain this sort of language and ideologies. This way we aren’t restricting hate speech (and therefore accidently causing generate more), but we are making sure we monitor said speech and help prevent people from adopting such ideologies.
LikeLike
Reading this I agree with what Jacob Mchangama has to say in the manner that repression only leads to a higher outbreak of hate speech and related violence. It reminds me of the stereotype of a restricted, sheltered teenager being more likely to rebel in more drastic ways haha. Mchangama was able to appeal to both sides of the argument and provide good facts to support his claim whilst keeping a solid counterarguement in tow. I believe that public online spaces, mainstream social media websites especially, should have general restrictions for harsh content that could incite violence or even simply hateful mindsets. Specifically if the person saying it is of high influence in the public eye. The ability to have anonymity online is a common catalyst for people to feel emboldened to say or promote hate speech, so if there could be a more direct tie to people’s identities that could work with what Mchanhama has to say and preserving the technicalities of free speech in the U.S.
LikeLike
Mchangama spends a lot of time talking about how hate speech played vital roles in several tragic events, and then tries to say that hate speech shouldn’t be banned. He actually convinced me that it should. “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
I think hate speech online should be banned, and hate speech in person should have a small punishment.
LikeLike
I would say that I agree with Mchangama. A lot of hate speech is hate speech because we don’t want people to use it or we say not to because of the history and connotation behind things. Hate speech is terrible and bringing someone down just because of race or ethnicity, gender, sex etc. It is not okay and many are very aware of the morality of using such words. What Jacob Mchangama is saying is that even if you were to outlaw it or fine people for using such words. But it would just be like murder, rape, burglary, any crime of that sort unfortunately people will still do it. The issue with outlawing it is giving it an immense amount of weight that makes people want to do it more. What would really have to happen is change the way people view it and allow themselves to say hey you can’t say that and move on.
LikeLike
In this article it addresses hate speech banning being made worse which i agree with. in other countries this has been proven to be problematic due to the way governments can abuse this power. people have the right to say what they want and if what they say is harmful to someones feelings rather then a direct physical harm, then people need to ignore it and find a way to progress. this is all proven in many examples from the text. truly if everything offensive were to be banned or punished then everyone would be locked up for good. now with that being said many people should be careful what they post because it has a negative effect on their persona and outlook. if they try to get a job then this could affect them. you should still be careful what you say online even though you have the right to think whatever you want.
LikeLike
Terrorists are using social media to share their acts online. This caused multiple politicians to take action and impose “tougher” regulations. Multiple platforms are now legally obligated to remove content that is hateful towards groups of people. This goes against the concept of free speech.
It is true that hateful comments can be harmful to people’s mental health. However, I do not necessarily agree that terrorist content online can encourage people to commit violent crimes as people often express themselves more freely online as opposed to real life. Yet, I still agree that tougher regulations can expose to the public the fact that such behaviour will not be tolerated in the society.
Despite free speech being an important right in society, it should be regulated in order for it not to harm others. I believe that free speech is able to exist, but should be regulated and people should be able to take responsibility for their actions.
LikeLike
It has become common today to believe that banning hate speech on social media would end enduring extremist violence. In fact, there have been legal actions aim to pressure tech companies to expel “dangerous speech”, and people praise the censorship systems that are already in effect in Europe. However, as Mchangama has pointed out, it is not necessarily good, if not bad, to ban and censor hate speech on social media.
Covering the mantel on hate speech would not completely stop the violence. First, it is impossible to wipe out every hate that exist. And if it really could eliminate all of them, then it would also inevitably suppress other powerful speech or oppsotition or radical activism that is legally valid and important. Moreover, suppression and censorship would do nothing as haters would then move to private and more obscure platforms, and as Mchangama puts it, “not only impedes the efforts of law enforcement agencies to track down future attacks but also hinders targeted counterspeech”. This is the most dangerous consequence in my point of view; hate would go underground and go unnoticed.
LikeLike
In Jacob Mchangama’s”Banning Hate Speech Won’t End Extremist Violence”, he argues that censorship and banning hate speech leads to destruction and disruption with our freedom of speech. Before reading his writings, my take on the matter was that banning hate speech would be good and beneficial for society. However, I do recognize that the ban would lead to even more hostility and anger in people. For example, this was exemplified when the social media platform “TikTok” was announced to be banned. The news of its possible ban circulated and caused an uproar from the users. Within the essay, Mchangama mentions how hate speech laws were carried out in Germany and proved that violent right-wing extremist crime increased from such. He mentions that social media is a dominating place of hate speech. Whatever is posted on social media does not go away. People remember and keep evidence of what you say publicly. Moreover, limitations on large platforms can not remove hate speech completely. Hate speech should not be intertwined with the concept of free speech. With the bans a laws, our freedom of speech is more disrupted than hate speech. Mchangama believes that, “the most effective strategy would be to develop trustworthy public institutions that can identify potential violent extremists and intervene before it’s too late”. I think this strategy could prove to be helpful with the initiative. The issue of removing hate speech is dealt with in a separate manner. The institutions would help with identifying the source of hate without placing limitations on people’s speech. Especially those that do not partake in harmful malicious comments that can be taken too extreme and threatening. Silencing the people makes matters worse. It is nearly impossible to control what people say or think. There would be more revolts and forms of aggression if a liberty is taken away from the people. Many people are more drawn to violence when something is removed from their grasp. If I become upset and frustrated that a piece of candy was taken away from me, I can’t imagine what I would feel if it was one of my rights.
LikeLike
在选择网课代修 http://www.wangkedaixiu.com/wkdx/ 服务时，留学生应优先选择合法的网课代修机构。这有助于确保服务的质量和安全性。就像选购商品时需要选择正规商家一样，选择网课代修服务也应注重合法性。
LikeLike
Jacob Mchangama’s point of view on the necessity of a broad definition of free expression is both timely and crucial in today’s technological world. Many social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have knowingly become places where people can give hate speeches, lies, and overall extremist content that could spread rapidly. However, the challenge is in balancing free speech with the need to prevent the circulation of harmful content. Mchangama’s argument that democracies require a broad protection for free speech is implemented in the belief that open dialogue and exchange of people different viewpoints are primary to democratic health. When people give too many restrictions on speech, we can risk suppressing important discussions and opinions, which can be important for society’s progress. The fear of “cancel culture” has become even bigger now that social media has become even bigger than before, and this leads to individuals being afraid to express their thoughts for fear of retribution. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that even though one does have the ability of freedom speech, there are still things that if said online can be punishable. Speech that initiates violence or constitutes direct threats should be diminished to protect public health. The main concern for social media platforms and policymakers is to find a balance that protects freedom of expression while also putting a hold on the spread of harmful content. The solution is not simple but through balanced policies, it can be possible for people to express themselves but also limit hate.
LikeLike
This debate on whether freedom of speech should be censored on online platforms is a pretty delicate topic. The people who are on the side of pro-censorship believe that limiting hate speech online would keep these online platforms safe from harmful posts from the public. On the other hand, people who believe in anti-censorship, such as Jacob Mchangama, believe that online platforms have a loose-loose definition of what is considered as hate speech online, and overall should not restrict certain posts—that would be considered hate speech—from being uploaded online.
I believe that to an extent, online censorship isn’t a practical solution to solving hate speech online. Now yes, I do believe that censorship should be enforced for other specific situations, such as censoring/banning people who engage in online harassment, censoring or informing the viewer that they have read misinformation and disinformation, and blocking people’s personal information. However, When it comes to “banning” or “censoring” people’s right to speak their minds online, isn’t a very practical answer to solving hate speech online. For context, Jacob Mchangama (the writer of the article) mentions that the people who were at the protests protested against the European laws preventing hate speech from being published online. This backlash began due to the protesters arguing that these laws against hate speech had hindered their right to speak freely online, and to some extent, what they believed wasn’t all too wrong. Limiting someone’s freedom to speak freely is viewed as an immoral act, and is not tolerable, especially in the 2020s.
Perhaps the eradication of these laws would solve hate speech altogether, as Jacob states in the article, “A 2017 study concluded that in Western Europe, violent far-right extremism was ‘accelerated by extensive public repression of radical right actors and opinions’.” In a nutshell, rather than censoring people’s opinions and beliefs—even if they involve extremist views or violent remarks—online, it would be more effective to allow these posts to be published online so they can be openly discussed and challenged.
LikeLike
The Complexities of Combatting Extremism Through Free Speech Regulation
By Jacob Mchangama.
I selected this topic because of how nuanced free speech and hate speech regulations are, and how they aren’t as easily discernable as one would think. This quote here further drives this narrative, “Mchangama argues that while hate speech undeniably has harmful consequences, enforcing speech restrictions is neither a guaranteed nor a straightforward remedy. He cites studies suggesting that freedom of expression is ‘associated with less rather than more violent extremism.'” I chose this topic because it is more prevalent and relevant in our modern society. Where technology dominates how we digest world problems, politics, and learning material. As well as how we express ourselves and interact with others. Silencing people is not the way to solve the hate speech/extremism and free speech issues.
Mchangama’s intended audience is policymakers and anyone concerned about future extremism and free speech. His style is analytical and persuasive. The situation is the growth of promoting extremism on social media platforms that advocate for free speech. The lack of a solution is causing growing concern on how to prevent and stop the spread of hate speech/extremism. But Mchangama offers insight and potential solution seen in this quote here, “By emphasizing the dangers of over-regulation and the need for nuanced strategies, Mchangama’s text encourages us to consider the broader implications of restricting free speech. His argument calls for policies that address extremism while upholding the democratic values of open dialogue and expression.”
Mchangama utilizes juxtaposition by comparing and contrasting the outcome of free speech and what it’s done for democracies versus repressive policies. His use of historical analogies adds validity and relevance to how dangerous free speech can be. This quote is an example of his use of historical analogy, “The recent shooting in Buffalo exemplifies the dangerous consequences of online radicalization, where perpetrators are inspired and influenced by extremist content shared and even live-streamed online. He also referenced the Rwandan genocide as another example of historical analogies. His inclusion of statistical data provides further credibility and concreteness which appeals to logical reasoning.
LikeLike