The deliberation that I attended, besides my own of course, was the deliberation of the other group in class, “Unpreach Free Speech?” The purpose of this deliberation was to discuss the lines that separate free speech as opposed to hate speech, whether or not we should allow hate speech to be grouped with free speech, and if not, how we should prevent hate speech from spreading.
The deliberation was broken into three approaches that were centered around core American values. The first approach was focused on liberty and fairness. In this approach, the deliberation group spoke about the potential benefits of using, as they phrased it, a “laissez-faire approach” when dealing with free speech. They feel that the Penn State administration should keep their hands off of free speech, and let the community and campus self-regulate what is good and what is wrong. They do specify that if speech evolves into violence, proper action would still be taken to punish the offender. However, discussion arose and said that in certain cases, speech should be prevented if it eludes to the potential of violence. This discussion actually led very nicely into the second approach.
The second approached focused on the values of safety and security. In this approach, the deliberation group discussed when it was appropriate for enforcement to be employed to restrict speech. One of the cases mentioned was when Penn State President Eric Barron prevented Richard Spencer, a well-known white supremacist, from coming to speak at the school. The deliberators also mentioned that, in their approach, they would take the instances in a case-by-case basis, thus not setting any strict or definite rules. Most people agreed on the case-by-case basis aspect of the approach. However, there was controversy when discussing what defines free speech versus hate speech. People generally believed that if the speech is intentionally egging people on and fueling them with anger, the situation is potentially dangerous and thus can be shut down with the help of enforcement. People also found an issue that it is difficult to be reactive to a situation if it is done spontaneously. For example, the Richard Spencer incident was easy to prevent because Penn State had time to evaluate the situation and respond appropriately. Instances, such as people gathering around the HUB and shouting their extreme opinions, leaves little time to react to the situation.
The final approach focused in on the values of community and progress. The approach focuses on how free speech embodies the idea that people can say whatever they want, but Penn State creates an atmosphere of inclusivity and diversity which often causes people with strong opinions to keep their opinions to themselves, thus “eliminating” their free speech .The discussion led to whether or not we should consider the members of the community of state college outside of the student body when considering free speech regulations.
Overall, people seemed to favor the second approach more than the other listed approaches. Approach two led to much more diverse discussion with tangible, feasible solutions, unlike the other two solutions that remained somewhat open-ended. One similarity that connected many of the approaches was the fact that many of the solutions depended on bystander intervention. For example, in approach two, reacting to case-by-case instances would be much easier if bystanders reported spontaneous occurrences rather than waiting for authorities to locate the issue by themselves. When discussing the voices that were under-represented, many types of people were mentioned. A white-supremacy group was invited to the deliberation, but did not show up. Their opinions would have been quite interesting pertaining to free speech and hate speech. Other under-represented voices were members of the permanent state college community, and the campus and state college police force.
Overall, I felt very enlightened after participating this debate. I was exposed to a lot of viewpoints, many that I would not have considered if I were thinking own this issue alone.
I went to this deliberation too– although I didn’t talk at all haha. Great description of all of the approaches, I like how you included the different solutions and ideas that people came up with through the deliberation. I agree that this delib made me think of other ideas that I had not thought of before! I am excited to see what you post about next regarding your civic issue.
I enjoyed reading this review because it helped me get an outsider perspective on how the deliberation went. I’m glad that you came and enjoyed it. I think that a key note that you mentioned was how a lot of people seemed to favor our second approach of safety and security. When reading the post-deliberation responses, we noticed this was less evident than we thought. Approach one was actually pretty common but it seemed that people were scared to say it out loud in class. Just something I though could be interesting to think about.
Thanks for coming out! It was fun hearing the opnions of my classmates on free speech. I was fairly surprised that most of the people talking seemed to favor free speech and that the value of the first amendment is still very strong in these opinions. I prepared for people to favor free speech policies so it caught me off guard with my approach.
I was sad I couldn’t make this one. It sounded like it ended in some meaningful solutions about bystander intervention. Nice description of the deliberation—it filled me in on what I missed.