DeVere 1
Lenna DeVere
Professor Fabrizi
English 1010
11 April 2025
Why McElwee Believes Hate Speech Should Be Restricted
In "The Case for Censoring Hate Speech," Sean McElwee argues that we
need to put restrictions on hate speech to create a safer and more inclusive
society. He writes for a general audience, including people who care about
free speech and social justice. McElwee believes that allowing hate speech
can lead to serious harm, especially on platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and
Twitter. This essay will look at how McElwee uses credibility (ethos), logic
(logos), and emotion (pathos) in his argument. It will also review any logical
mistakes he makes and assess how e ective his writing is to readers.
McElwee starts by defining hate speech and explaining how it hurts
specific communities. He states that hate speech is not just about free
expression, it can cause harm and promote violence. He highlights the role of
social media, saying that “those who claim to defend free speech when they
defend the right to post hate speech online are, in truth, backwards. Free
speech isn’t an absolute right; no right is weighed in a vacuum” (McElwee).
, DeVere 2
McElwee argues that we need to rethink our views on free speech and that
society should set limits to protect people’s safety.
McElwee builds trust (ethos) by using research to support his claim. For
example, “Humboldt State University compiled a visual map that charts
150,000 hateful insults aggregated over the course of 11 months in the U.S. by
pairing Google’s Maps API with a series of the most homophobic, racist, and
otherwise prejudiced tweets. The map's existence draws into question the
notion that the 'Twittersphere' can organically combat hate speech”
(McElwee). As readers, we can collectively agree that social media plays a
huge role in this argument. Twitter, specifically, allows individuals to post with
few restrictions, allowing hate speech to spread nationwide.
He also uses logical reasoning (logos) to connect hate speech to its
harmful e ects. McElwee argues that freedom of speech should not allow
harm to others. He explains, “American free speech jurisprudence relies upon
the assumption that speech is merely the extension of a thought, and not an
action. If we consider it an action, then saying that we should combat hate
speech with more positive speech is an absurd proposition; the speech has
Lenna DeVere
Professor Fabrizi
English 1010
11 April 2025
Why McElwee Believes Hate Speech Should Be Restricted
In "The Case for Censoring Hate Speech," Sean McElwee argues that we
need to put restrictions on hate speech to create a safer and more inclusive
society. He writes for a general audience, including people who care about
free speech and social justice. McElwee believes that allowing hate speech
can lead to serious harm, especially on platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and
Twitter. This essay will look at how McElwee uses credibility (ethos), logic
(logos), and emotion (pathos) in his argument. It will also review any logical
mistakes he makes and assess how e ective his writing is to readers.
McElwee starts by defining hate speech and explaining how it hurts
specific communities. He states that hate speech is not just about free
expression, it can cause harm and promote violence. He highlights the role of
social media, saying that “those who claim to defend free speech when they
defend the right to post hate speech online are, in truth, backwards. Free
speech isn’t an absolute right; no right is weighed in a vacuum” (McElwee).
, DeVere 2
McElwee argues that we need to rethink our views on free speech and that
society should set limits to protect people’s safety.
McElwee builds trust (ethos) by using research to support his claim. For
example, “Humboldt State University compiled a visual map that charts
150,000 hateful insults aggregated over the course of 11 months in the U.S. by
pairing Google’s Maps API with a series of the most homophobic, racist, and
otherwise prejudiced tweets. The map's existence draws into question the
notion that the 'Twittersphere' can organically combat hate speech”
(McElwee). As readers, we can collectively agree that social media plays a
huge role in this argument. Twitter, specifically, allows individuals to post with
few restrictions, allowing hate speech to spread nationwide.
He also uses logical reasoning (logos) to connect hate speech to its
harmful e ects. McElwee argues that freedom of speech should not allow
harm to others. He explains, “American free speech jurisprudence relies upon
the assumption that speech is merely the extension of a thought, and not an
action. If we consider it an action, then saying that we should combat hate
speech with more positive speech is an absurd proposition; the speech has
