Hate Speech On The Internet Should Be Regulated Analysis
Expression Through Talking The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guarantees our freedom of expression, as it is written in the constitution, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their statements; and the freedom of the press, one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” This clause is the based foundation of the articles: “Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated” by Ronald Eissens, and “Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Regulated” by Sandy Starr, in which both authors reveled their opinions and standing on this issue by using different styles and presenting their ideas in different ways. Throughout his Essay, Eissens uses different appeals on order to convey his ideas, specially using pathos. He believes that hate speech should be regulated to stop hate crimes such as racism, Islamophobia, and other discriminations against individuals and groups. In order to make this idea appealing, he mentions different crimes, such
…show more content…
The author argues that regulating the Internet’s hate speech limits free speech. Starr also uses pathos by mentioning religious books such as the Qur’an and the Bible in order to appeal to his audience by saying that removing certain speech from the Internet is like removing messages from these books. He also provides the reader with evidence by saying that the Internet already has censorship inducing people to report things that might be offensive, that statement contradicts his main argument but he does a good use of it by mentioning that this is a way to behave in a authoritarian manner, seeking to regulate everything we say in the internet. Starr arguments seem to be well organized, because she provides examples and evidence in order to convey her arguments. She uses logos by presenting statistics in which she shows the percentage of hate speech contained in all Web
The author argues that regulating the Internet’s hate speech limits free speech. Starr also uses pathos by mentioning religious books such as the Qur’an and the Bible in order to appeal to his audience by saying that removing certain speech from the Internet is like removing messages from these books. He also provides the reader with evidence by saying that the Internet already has censorship inducing people to report things that might be offensive, that statement contradicts his main argument but he does a good use of it by mentioning that this is a way to behave in a authoritarian manner, seeking to regulate everything we say in the internet. Starr arguments seem to be well organized, because she provides examples and evidence in order to convey her arguments. She uses logos by presenting statistics in which she shows the percentage of hate speech contained in all Web