CASD1707 Fall 2024

Public Speaking Title Icon

Module 11 Response

by

Shiraz Biggie (she/her/hers)

Posted

in

Checklist:

Back to Why Free Speech?
Go back to Module 11 Overview

Discussion Response

Which points from Professor Rae Langton’s Ted Talk on Free Speech did you agree (or disagree) with and why? What might be some of the other purposes of free speech that she does not mention? Which points from Professor Katia Campbell’s talk do you agree (or disagree with) and why? Do you think all speech should be free, or should some be regulated?

Comments

16 responses to “Module 11 Response”

  1. Rosy Gadeh Avatar
    Rosy Gadeh

    While I agreed with Professor Langton that free speech can at times silence people, I think she could have also brought up how it might encourage empathy. I appreciate how Professor Campbell emphasised how context shapes speech. Free speech is essential but I believe that hate speech and other harming communication should be restricted.

    Reply
  2. Kimone Atkinson Avatar
    Kimone Atkinson

    I agree with Professor Rae Langton’s speech that we should use our freedom of speech to gain more knowledge and question our leaders. Personally, I don’t think that Professor Rae Langton missed anything in her speech. I agree with Campbell’s speech; for instance, I think that hate speech and speech from men and maybe (some) women should be regulated.

    Reply
  3. Alan Jiang Avatar
    Alan Jiang

    Professor Rae Langton’s talk about freedom of speech as freedom to do things with word and power to talk about politics. I do agree with her because I think we should be able to speak whatever we want. Professor Katia Campbell talks about hate speech and we should challenge it. I agree with this too because I believe that there was always a better way to solve problems than violence. I believe that all speech should be free. I would rather them talk about it than do something violent.

    Reply
  4. Hibah Hashmi Avatar
    Hibah Hashmi

    While both professors advocate for robust free speech protections, they also acknowledge the need for limitations on certain types of speech. Langton highlights the problem of speech that silences others. She uses an example of voter suppression to undermine individuals’ ability to exercise their free speech rights. Campbell focuses on the harms of hate speech and its potential to normalize prejudice and discrimination. She argues that hate speech should not be excused as simply “valid opinion” and emphasizes the importance of holding individuals accountable for the consequences of their words.

    Reply
  5. Bendly Avatar
    Bendly

    I agree with all the points of Langston’s speech. She emphasizes how much education and empowerment are given through free speech. I believe she also could have also mentioned persuasion. For Campbell’s speech I also agree with her points. She emphasized that hate speech should be regulated and it is detrimental to many communities. I believe that not all speech should be be free and their should be consequences to those who practice hate speech. In Spain, A soccer superstar named Vinicius Jr has been racially abused many times on the pitch. After months of crying out for help and demanding change, the league has been cracking down on racism and throwing perpetrators in Jail. A similar system should be adopted in America.

    Reply
  6. Diana Moiseyeva Avatar
    Diana Moiseyeva

    Professor Rae Langton’s TED Talk highlights the importance of free speech in promoting truth, democracy, and equality, which I agree with, though she doesn’t emphasize purposes like self expression or challenging norms. Professor Katia Campbell, in her talk, argues that free speech carries responsibilities and that hate speech should not be protected, a point I largely agree with, though regulating hate speech risks suppressing dissent. Free speech is essential, but some regulation may be necessary to prevent harm, such as incitement to violence, while ensuring it doesn’t infringe on essential freedoms. Both speakers stress the need for thoughtful engagement and balance in addressing free speech.

    Reply
  7. Alexander Szczesny Avatar
    Alexander Szczesny

    Agreed with Langston as it portrays are very strong yet logical take on the importance of free speech given its nature of natural empowerment that it brings to the table across all boards of listening and understanding to those participating.

    Reply
  8. Nichelle Julius Gordon Avatar
    Nichelle Julius Gordon

    I agree with Professor Langton that free speech is that you need to understand someone with how they freely speak. I agree with Professor Katia that there is a difference between freedom of speech and blatant opinions. I think there needs to be basic regulations of a speech depending on a crowd. if there is a mix genre of people in the audience then yes there needs to be regulations. But if there is a common basis amongst the audience then there does not need to be a regulation.

    Reply
  9. Leonardo Avatar
    Leonardo

    I agree with Professor Langton that speech is knowledge because individuals like us want to know more about the world and discuss certain topics that are true or not and gain that information from others so that we can transfer those details to others. She could mention that freedom of speech also allows us to persuade and to socialize in expressing how we feel towards others. Professor Katia’s speech that I agree upon is that Hate Speech is hard to make it enact violence towards others because the speech that we say towards each one of us can influence us to do negative things and inflicts our emotions more than when someone is hitting us physically. I do agree that hate speech should be regulated. After all, it harms our thoughts and how we are influenced because it can make us become like other individuals and can also inflict suicide. I feel like when regulating speech context is needed because at times speech can just be playful words or a joke and we can’t say that all bad words are bad but must regulate certain topics from being discussed like she mention politics or religion

    Reply
  10. Matthew Herman Avatar
    Matthew Herman

    While watching Professor Rae Langton’s Ted Talk on Free Speech, I agreed with her on her point that free speech should be for knowledge. I also agree that free speech should keep the bastards honest. While watching Professor Katia Campbell’s speech, I agreed with her that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. I agree that if ideas are not informed, they are not worth anything. I do not think all speech should be free. hateful rhetoric should not be tolerated, and harmful and misinformed rhetoric that harms and misinforms society is very dangerous.

    Reply
  11. Adam Hasan Avatar
    Adam Hasan

    After watching Professor Rae’s Ted talk, I came to the conclusion of agreeing with her that free speech should expand our knowledge. It allows us to learn more about the world around us, to understand new perspectives, and to overall learn from each other. However Professor Katie made a point that caught my attention that there is a distinct line between free speech, and just extreme opinions. I feel like free speech should be free for all at all times, we all have our right to voice our opinions which is protected by the first Amendment.

    Reply
  12. Muhammad Uddin Avatar
    Muhammad Uddin

    In Professor Rae Langton’s TED Talk, I agree that free speech is crucial for democracy and personal freedom, and that it should have some boundaries to balance other societal values. However, she could have discussed more practical ways to regulate speech without infringing on freedoms. Free speech also helps with personal growth and social change, which she didn’t mention. In Professor Katia Campbell’s TED Talk, I agree that free speech comes with responsibility, especially regarding hate speech, and that civil dialogue is important. However, I think all voices should be heard, as long as they don’t incite violence. Overall, while free speech is essential, certain types of speech, like hate speech and incitement to violence, should be regulated to protect people from harm.

    Reply
  13. Liridona Hyseni Avatar
    Liridona Hyseni

    While I agree with having freedom of speech I do believe that there is a limit to everything. We should share our feelings especially when for a greater cause, but should understand that the way and manner things are said can either defer the outcome you are trying to achieve or hurt ones feelings. I agree that with free speech just as any speech come repercussions and responsibility. You should always think before you speak, and especially when you’re speaking strictly out of emotion.

    Reply
  14. Darnell Prudent Avatar
    Darnell Prudent

    I agree with Langston’s speech in the sense that free speech enhances learning and empowerment; however, she could have mentioned persuasion. I also support Campbell’s view that hate speech harms communities and should have consequences. In Spain, soccer star Vinicius Jr. faced racial abuse, and the league now punishes offenders with jail time. The U.S. should consider a similar approach.

    Reply
  15. Kadin Blanc Avatar
    Kadin Blanc

    I agreed when Langton argues that free speech can sometimes harm individuals and groups by perpetuating inequality. This is a valid point as speech can indeed reinforce social hierarchies and discrimination. I disagreed when Langton suggests that certain speech should be restricted to protect individuals, some might argue that this could lead to excessive censorship and suppression of dissenting voices. While free speech is a fundamental right, there should be some regulations to prevent harm, such as laws against hate speech, incitement to violence, and defamation. This helps protect individuals and maintain social order without overly restricting freedom of expression.

    Reply
  16. Su-Dony Bryan Avatar
    Su-Dony Bryan

    I agree for us to have free speech but at the same time, you can not say too much because that could cause many problems. I agree that you would be responsible for what you say. She argues that hate speech should not be excused as simply “valid opinion.” I feel like we should hold people accountable for what they say.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *