« The future of money: Lana Swartz on digital currency and the benefits of cash | Main | Beyond shame and stigma: Jay Shifman on reframing how we talk about drug use and drug addiction »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


1. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.


1. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Sr. Henry Bartholomu III

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.

Kayla Rowsey

1. 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.

2. 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.

Dean Sacco

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.


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.


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.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan