AP English Colloquium on Freedom of Speech

FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER ASSAULT ON CAMPUS

Facilitator: Ago Himawan (Ago)
Secretary: Sarah Rosetta (SJ)
Participants: Ashana Zahra (Ashana), Shena Theresia (Shena)

* Addressing parts that incite confusion
   * Ago: "Freedom of speech has been severely criticised at many American universities." This is essentially a claim, but does not explain the 5Ws and 1H. The next sentence is another claim that is not evidence at all, which confuses the reader. The article is overall very confusing because context is needed.
   * Another claim: "Only the powerful can be racist." Zero evidence, there are no numbers or names. Ashana claims that it happens but there needs to be more context. Shena states that it is not true, because she is racist too.
   * Even in Indonesia, where the majority of wealth belongs to descendants of Chinese, common Indonesian households still make fun of Chinese and their race.
* How does freedom of speech improve a society?
   * Encourages people to talk more—allows people to breach issues that are traditionally sensitive, makes us progressive in a way. Barriers do not exist.
* Should there be limits on what we are free to say?
   * Difficult to say—blurs the line between free speech and hate speech.
   * Very subjective, especially on the lines of sensitivity.
   * We can say whatever we want, but that doesn't meant that we should say whatever we want.
   * There is a huge possibility that freedom of speech can be abused.
   * It is entirely possible that your freedom of speech can violate another's freedom of speech.
* Is censorship violating freedom of speech?
   * The country limits what the citizens should believe in.
   * Does not mean that freedom of speech is violated, because they can talk about it, they just can't see it.
   * Another critical question: How can we talk about something we don't know of?
* Are there dangers to speaking freely? Do you have to careful about what you say?
   * Absolutely—you need to be responsible of your words.
   * Just because we are not offended, doesn't mean that other people are not offended.
* Should only elite philosopher-kings be trusted with free speech?
   * Unrelated, but presidents have the least freedom of speech. With more power and responsibility, comes less freedom.
   * Plato's statement is a violation of freedom of speech. It is not free speech if it's not accessible to everyone.
* Should we be talking about new mysteries when the masses are not ready for the truth?
   * The more people who knows, the more human it is.
   * Hoaxes are a huge possibility and must be acknowledged. With more people talking about it, words become twisted and the truth becomes blurred, or another shape entirely.
* Conclusion
   * The author does not provide sufficient evidence, and backing claims with more claims and philosophy.
   * Quoting philosophers from the 1800s is not credible and applicable in the modern age.
   * With great power, comes great responsibility. Just because you can say anything, does not mean you should say anything. Not only is freedom of speech a right, it is a responsibility that must be upheld by everyone.