The limits of free speech: Jacob Mchangama on censorship, extremism, and hate speech

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

 

1. 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?
   
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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?

Comments

[Stacie]

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.

[Abby]

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.

[Zach]

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.

[U.A.]

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.

[Salma]

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.

[Abby]

1. He introduces what others are saying by using templates. Also, he discusses both sides of the ongoing argument between free speech and violent extremism.
2. 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.
3. His concluding sentence makes extensive use of connecting words. He incorporates details from other paragraphs and summarizes it at the end.
4. 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.

[valerie camacho]

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.

[L.E.]

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.

[Isabella]

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

[Chloe]

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.

[Karsten Bogle]

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[Grant]

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.

[Lily]

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.

[Karsten Bogle]

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.

[Indi Carpenter]

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[Elijah]

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.

[Jadyn]

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.

[Hunter C]

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.

[Kim Daniels]

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.

[bailey]

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.

[ben]

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.

[Nathen]

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.