Another textbook, Structure of Argument, discusses three kinds of claims for an argument: claims of fact, value, and policy. A claim of fact states a fact, like "Half of this class is women." Claim of fact needs to be supported by • • • sufficient and appropriate data reliable authorities facts or inferences: interpretation The writer should make clear when she is offering an inference (interpretation) rather than a fact. claim of value: a claim that asserts that some things are more or less desirable than others Claims of value may sometimes be difficult to distinguish from claims of fact, and its not absolutely necessary. What are the values that underly our beliefs? A claim of value, like "free speech is more important than protecting everyone's feelings from being hurt," involves conceptions or ideas that act as standards for judging what is right or wrong, worthwhile or worthless, beautiful or ugly, good or bad. Claims of value involve the values of audience, but “a majority preference is not enough to confer moral value” (169). Just because most people supported slavery in the times of Ancient Greece doesn't mean it was right. claim of policy: a claim that specific courses of action should be instituted to solve problems Claims of policy: presuppose a problem and that something should or should not be done. However, avoid offering a solution to a huge problem. "Youtube should convene a board of experts to help make decisions about what content to ban." Examples: Although seeking peace is a right and morally just act, their governments punish those who speak against war for their “unpatriotic” acts. ______ Taking all of this into account, it becomes evident that the FCC is a hindrance to America, and, on top of that, is a flagrant violation of American people’s inalienable rights of free speech and must be abolished immediately. ____ There has been a big question mark, from the racist and sexist speech to the words or symbols printed on a T-shirt; the boundaries for speech to be defined as hate speech are still to be determined. _______ In both “Student Sues” and “Bethel School District,” we see two public schools punishing students for using their free speech. _______ The Supreme Court stated “that forcing a group to accept certain members may impair its ability to ‘express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express’” (Johnson 596). ________ Write claims of fact, value, and policy that you are making in your own essay 1 on free speech: Warrants Help Students Think Critically about Claims and Evidence by Ted Kinnaman In academic studies of critical thinking, much attention is given to the notion of a warrant. It is important that students understand the use of warrants in writing, no matter what the field. This helps them assess the evidence for the claims they make, and the claims made by others that they study. When someone makes a claim or assertion, we can ask them, ‘how did you get there?’ or ‘why do you believe this?’ To cite a warrant is to answer this sort of question. It is to offer some justification for the claim just made. But there are many different sorts of claims and many sorts of warrant as well. Here are some of the most important examples: Empirical claims: Empirical claims are claims about how things are in the world (for example, that it is raining in Tennessee) and the warrant for such a claim must be evidence about the world. This might be an observation (I was just in Tennessee and saw it raining), a report of an observation (I talked to my parents in Nashville who said that it is raining), or a reference to a regular connection among phenomena (There is a low pressure area over the Southeast and that always causes rain in Tennessee). Scientific claims: Strictly speaking, scientific claims are empirical claims, but they are distinguished from ordinary empirical claims by the method by which they are supported. The warrant for a scientific claim is grounded in the scientific method: Why do you believe that smoking causes cancer? Because this hypothesis has been carefully tested, the results formulated to stay strictly within what the experiment supports, the conclusions confirmed through testing by other researchers, and so on. Moral claims: Claims about what is right or wrong are generally supported by appealing to broader moral principles that have the particular claim as consequences. For example, why do you think that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was immoral? Because the bombing killed innocent people for no good overriding purpose, and killing innocent people needlessly is always wrong. Note that in addition to the moral principle, moral claims are often based in part 1 on empirical claims with which one can take issue as outlined above. Historical claims: Claims about historical events require special sorts of warrants, citing evidence from historical sources. Specifically, historical knowledge usually depends heavily on testimonial evidence, such as contemporary accounts of events and official records or archives, as well as reasoned interpretation of such testimony by other historians. Why do you think that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of Hitler? Because examination of German responses to Versailles show their direct linkage to the rise of virulent nationalism in Germany in the 1920’s. Pragmatic claims: The warrant for a claim about how to accomplish a goal depends on knowing how things work in the world. You should take the Metro to your interview in DC instead of driving, because all the highways into the city are crowded at that hour, and furthermore the stress of driving will cause you to have difficulty focusing on the interview. Aesthetic claims: Sometimes claims about beauty or artistic merit can be support by appealing to feelings (‘I love it!’) but more often they are supported by appealing to criteria for success in a particular area (Matisse’s The Dance is a great painting because of the perfect balance in the composition) or to a general principle about art or beauty (Citizen Kane is a great film because it makes the viewer care deeply about the fate of Charles Foster Kane). Of course, there are other possible categories, and the lines between the categories are not as neat as presented here. But this is a valuable exercise for students writing in all disciplines. When students understand the concept of a warrant they are better able to make reasoned judgments about whatever material they study, and express these judgments in their written work. source: http://classweb.gmu.edu/WAC/philosophy/critical_thinking/warrants.html 2 Opinion The Free Speech-Hate Speech Trade-Off SEPT. 13, 2017 NY Times Students protesting a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley in February. CreditElijah Nouvelage/Getty Images “Controversies over freedom of speech on college campuses have existed as long as there have been college campuses. But the specific issues vary with each generation.” That is the first line of Erwin Chemerinsky’s new book, “Free Speech on Campus,” written with Howard Gillman. Mr. Chemerinsky is not only one of the foremost legal scholars on the First Amendment but also a firsthand witness to the free speech debates of today as the new dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law. Here he talks with Natalie Shutler, the editor of the On Campus column, about hate speech, censorship and what campuses can and can’t do. This interview has been edited and condensed. Natalie Shutler: Hi, Professor! I have spent the past year talking with college students about free speech and, as you know all too well, it’s a contentious topic for them. In this loud internet age, in which provocative opinions are hitting us constantly and from all sides, plenty of students don’t see value in hosting more of the same on their campuses. One thing I appreciate about your new book is that you are thoughtful about these students’ concerns, even if you disagree with their conclusions. Erwin Chemerinsky: I think we have to be attentive to the fact that many students want to restrict speech because of very laudable instincts. They want to protect other students from hate speech. They want to create an inclusive community for all. But the response to hate speech can’t be to prohibit and punish it. It’s unconstitutional. We have to find other ways to create inclusive communities. = Natalie: For many students, it’s not just about hate speech, but the kind of speech that creates harm. This term is agonizingly broad and open to wildly different interpretations. But students aren’t wrong in thinking that speech can be a weapon. Erwin: Students are quite right. We protect speech because of its effects. If speech had no effects, it wouldn’t be a fundamental right. Those effects can be positive but they can also be very negative. Speech can cause enormous harm. It can be hurtful, it can cause people to be excluded, and it can interfere with education or employment. Especially in colleges and universities, we have to be attentive to that. Natalie: But you do take a hard line in your book that even hate speech must be protected. Erwin: The law under the First Amendment is clear: Hate speech is protected speech. Over 300 colleges and universities adopted hate speech codes in the early 1990s. Every one to be challenged in court was ruled unconstitutional. And there are good reasons for that. After some really ugly incidents at the University of Michigan in the late 1980s, the school adopted a hate speech code that was undoubtedly well intentioned. But a federal court declared it unconstitutional, in part, because it was so vague. It said that there could not be speech that “demeans or stigmatizes” anyone based on race or gender. But what does that mean? A sociobiology student who challenged the law said, “I want to study whether there are inherent differences between women and men. What if my conclusions are deemed stigmatizing on the basis of gender?” And during the years Michigan’s speech code was on the books, more than 20 black students were charged with racist speech by white students. There wasn’t a single instance of a white student being punished for racist speech, even though that was what had prompted the drafting of the Michigan speech code in the first place. That’s part of a much bigger historical pattern: As we saw in Michigan, when hate speech codes or laws are adopted, they are most often directed at the very groups they are meant to protect. Natalie: You make the distinction in your new book that this doesn’t mean that the First Amendment is absolute. For example, there is no constitutional protection for a “true threat” or for harassment. Campuses can protect students against that kind of speech. But before you address unprotected speech, maybe we should talk a bit about the history of free speech, which you lay out in your book. Erwin: It is hard to imagine social progress anywhere that wasn’t dependent on freedom of speech. The civil rights protests of the 1960s — the lunch counter sit-ins, the marches and demonstrations — were essential to federal civil rights acts and the end of Jim Crow laws that segregated every aspect of the South. The anti-Vietnam War protests were crucial for the end of that war. This has been true throughout American history. The 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote was the product of demonstrations and speech. Natalie: Now, as you point out, many students associate free speech with the vitriol of the internet more than they do with the civil rights movement. I feel for them. The internet is terrible. But how do you see things turning around? How do you think students could begin to associate free speech as something for the vulnerable? Erwin: Some of this is about a lack of education about the history of freedom of speech. I do worry that students today may equate free speech more with cruel or racist posts on Yik Yak than with the civil rights protests of the 1960s. But even when students talk about harm and safety, they need to remember how malleable those terms are. There is no doubt that the civil rights protests deeply offended many Southerners, however objectionable that may sound to us today. An example like that illustrates why offensiveness to an audience can’t justify stopping speech. Natalie: Identity is important to nearly every college student I talk to, regardless of their background or political persuasion. You make the case that free speech is the basis for asserting identities and, in particular, was necessary for the expansion in public of countercultural identities — including, and I’m reading straight from the book here, “forms of expression that challenge traditional religion, prevailing social mores, familiar lifestyle choices, inherited views about sexuality, or historic gender roles.” But of course, some identities are much more vulnerable to intimidation than others. You argue that college administrations need not ignore that. An administration can’t bar a campus speaker, but it can engage in its own speech by reaffirming the social standards of the community and reaching out to students who might be offended or hurt. Campuses don’t need to stand behind offensive speakers; they just need to allow them the opportunity to speak. Erwin: I think it’s so important for campus officials to respond to and condemn hate speech. Just because the First Amendment protects a right to say something, that doesn’t mean it should be said. Campus officials can describe the type of community they want to create and denounce hate speech as inconsistent with it. Many years ago, when I was teaching at the University of Southern California Law School, someone wrote a very offensive homophobic slur on a chalkboard. The dean did not try to find out who did it or threaten punishment. Instead, he wrote a very powerful statement about why what happened was inconsistent with the community we aspired to be. His message had an enormously positive effect. Also, it is very important that the students themselves respond to offensive speech. They can hold counter-demonstrations, teach-ins and protests. All of that is protected speech. They just can’t protest in a way that interferes with the ability of others to speak. The law is clear that even in places that are open to speech, there can be time, place and manner restrictions, so long as there are adequate places for free speech. There is a right to speak on the campus, but there is no right to come into my classroom and shout me down. There is a right to use public streets and sidewalks, but a city can prevent trucks with sound amplification equipment from playing music in the middle of the night. Dormitories are also a very special place of repose for students. It’s their home, and the Supreme Court has recognized the protection of privacy of people in their homes. So there can be much greater restrictions in dormitories — but it always has to be content neutral. It can’t be based on content or message. Natalie: Right, so you could say that no one is allowed to hang flags from their window, but not that no one is allowed to hang Confederate flags from their window. Erwin: Exactly. Natalie: Obviously violence — like what we saw in Charlottesville and could presumably expect near other college towns in the coming year — is not protected by the Constitution. But I have heard from many students that they are frustrated with the idea that people of color and other vulnerable demographic groups are responsible for staying nonviolent and peaceful when aggressive demonstrators march on their colleges. It’s not that they want violence, but that they feel that they are being told to respond to aggression with passivity. Could you comment on that? I certainly understand where they are coming from. Erwin: There is no right to engage in violence. Campuses can take steps to prevent violence — such as preventing weapons at demonstrations, having speakers be in areas where safety can best be assured, and moving counter-demonstrations to another area. Also, if speech is a true threat — causing a person to reasonably fear imminent physical harm — it is not protected by the First Amendment. Natalie: What about the argument that some inflammatory speakers come to campus with the express aim of creating a hostile environment? Erwin: It is important to recognize that a public university has no choice but to allow speakers on campus even if their message is regarded as hateful or racist. If the campus tried to exclude such a speaker, it would get sued and the speaker would win and likely would be made a martyr for the First Amendment in the process. Nothing can be gained by exclusion. But the campus must ensure safety for its students, staff and faculty. This might include regulating where the controversial speaker is allowed to be present and, likely, it will include more of a police presence. I am sympathetic to the concerns of students who are wary about more police coming to campus, but not having law enforcement present in the face of a danger to public safety risks even greater harms. The central principle of the First Amendment — and of academic freedom — is that all ideas and views can be expressed. Sometimes they are ideas and views that we might consider noble, that advance equality. Sometimes they might be ideas that we abhor. But there is no way to empower a government or campus administration to restrict speech without allowing for the possibility that tomorrow, it will be our speech that is restricted. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. Leaders The Economist June 4th 2016 9 Under attack Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out TN A sense, this is a golden age J. for free speech. Ybur smartphone can call up newspapers from the other side of world in seconds. More than a billion tweets, Facebook posts and blog updates are published every single day. Anyone with access to the internet can be a publisher, and anyone who can reach Wikipedia enters a digital haven where America's First Amendment reigns. However, watchdogs report that speaking out is becoming more dangerous-and they are right. As our report on page 55 shows, curbs on free speech have grown tighter. Without the contest of ideas, the world is timid and ignorant. Free speech is under attack in three ways. First, repression by governments has increased. Several countries have reimposed coldwar controls or introduced new ones. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia enjoyed a free-for-all of vigorous debate. Under Vladimir Putin, the muzzle has tightened again. All the main television-news outlets are now controlled by the state or by Mr Putin's cronies. Journalists who ask awkward questions are no longer likely to be sent to labour camps, but several have been murdered. China's leader, Xi Jinping, ordered a crackdown after he took over in 2012, toughening up censorship of social media, arresting hundreds of dissidents and replacing liberal debate in universities with extra Marxism. In the Middle East the overthrow of despots during the Arab springletpeople speak freely for the first time in generations. This has lasted in Tunisia, but Syria and Libya are more dangerous for journalists than they were before the uprisings; and Egypt is ruled by a man who says, with a straight face: "Don't listen to anyone but me." Words, sticks and stones Second, a worrying number of non-state actors are enforcing censorship by assassination. Reporters in Mexico who investigate crime or corruption are often murdered, and sometimes tortured first. Jihadists slaughter those they thinl< have insulted their faith. When authors and artists say anything that might be deemed disrespectful of Islam, they tal
Purchase answer to see full attachment