Deliberation Nation was, for me, a mix of fascination, anxiety, and desperately trying to find time to attend a second discussion.

 

As it happened, the only deliberation I was able to attend was Friday’s Hate Speech vs. Free Speech discussion.  Although it was the only meeting that fit into my schedule that week, I’m really glad that it was the one I was able to go to – I found the conversation engaging and thought provoking, and I’ve come back to think about the deliberation  several times.

 

There were about 12 of us seated at cafe tables in Frasier Commons, and after five minutes of introductions and donut-munching, we split into two groups.  The approach teams then spoke to the smaller groups, giving us a more intimate setting for conversation and discussion.  I thought this method was really effective at engaging every attendee, as the small groups forced a certain level of participation.  I enjoyed discussing all three approaches, but I found our discussion of legal censorship particularly fascinating.  I was sitting next to a girl who had a very different idea of free speech than I do, and it was really cool to discuss how far our government can really go to prevent hateful speech.

 

All things considered, the Hate Speech vs Free Speech deliberation was a really cool experience.  I got to see what it was like to sit on the other side of a deliberation (without the anxiety of “Oh god I hope we can get them to talk for the whole 20 minutes”), and I was able to meet other Freshmen that care about this issue.  I thought the deliberation was a fantastic opportunity to challenge my perceptions of free speech and hate speech, and to practice civic engagement with other Penn State students.