Essays Prompts

Question 1

Topic 1

Joel Feinberg says that the “forceful interference in private affairs seems morally outrageous, unless of course it is supported by special justifying reasons. In the absence of appropriate reasons, the coercive use of governmental power, based ultimately on guns and clubs, is merely arbitrary and as such is always morally illegitimate.” (“Pornography and the Criminal Law” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 40 (1979), p. 567)

Under what conditions is it legitimate for the State to criminalize private activities? Explain your answer using two examples, such as sexual immorality, drug use, or pornography.

Question 2

Topic 2
The philosophical arguments for the importance of free speech claim that in a liberal democracy free speech has special value and legal restrictions on the content of speech should therefore be very limited. Choose either the argument from truth or the argument from autonomy and explain the argument.

Do you think the argument is convincing in the current social media environment in which immoral and false speech spreads easily on platforms like Facebook, (formerly) Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc? Why or why not?

Question 3

Topic 3: Lecture 26
Catharine MacKinnon argues that legal regulation of pornography is justified because (a) pornography constitutes sex discrimination or subordination of women and (b) pornography silences women and therefore interferes with women’s freedom of speech. Explain both components of MacKinnon’s argument. Do you agree with either or both components of her argument? Why or why not?

Question 4

Topic 4
The US case of Chaplinsky identified “fighting words” as those “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Do you think that it is legitimate to legally restrict or criminalize hate speech (speech that is hateful, abusive derogatory, demeaning, degrading, or insulting to a group) on the basis that it is fighting words? Why or why not?

Answer 4

Thesis: In this essay, I will argue that hate speech does not necessarily constitute a breach of the peace in every case, but that when it causes reasonably expected harm—especially inciting violence or serious disruption—it should be treated as “fighting words” and restricted accordingly.

In this essay, I will argue that hate speech does not necessarily constitute a breach of the peace in every case, but that when it causes reasonably expected harm—especially inciting violence or serious disruption—it should be treated as “fighting words” and restricted accordingly.

Critical Analysis and Objections
Objection 1: Vagueness and Overreach

One objection is that any law trying to distinguish between harmful and non-harmful hate speech risks vagueness. How can courts reliably predict whether speech will incite violence or cause serious harm?

Response: Courts already make context-sensitive judgments about incitement (e.g., in Brandenburg v. Ohio). Laws can be carefully drafted to require clear evidence that the speech would likely produce immediate harm or violence, not just emotional offense. Narrow tailoring and judicial restraint can manage this risk.
Objection 2: Slippery Slope to Censorship

Another objection is that even narrowly tailored restrictions on hate speech could lead to a slippery slope where more and more speech is restricted under the justification of “harm.”

Response: To guard against this, strict standards of proof should be required:

Harm must be concrete and imminent (not speculative).

Restrictions must be the least restrictive means of preventing the harm.

Courts should explicitly recognize the high value of speech and require compelling reasons for restriction.

One instance where hate speech, while deeply offensive and morally reprehensible, does not amount to an imminent breach of the peace is in the context of published literature. For example, a book or article that expresses racist or sexist views can certainly cause moral outrage. However, unlike face-to-face provocations, the written word gives readers time and space to engage critically with the content rather than reacting immediately with violence. Courts have been especially cautious in applying the “fighting words” doctrine to published works for this reason: they recognize that literature typically prompts reflection and discussion, not immediate violent confrontation. Moreover, the existence of such content can serve a valuable role in society by exposing harmful ideologies to public scrutiny and critical debate, helping individuals and communities to better understand, challenge, and ultimately reject prejudiced ways of thinking.

In conclusion, hate speech should not be automatically classified as “fighting words” in every case. However, when hate speech reasonably causes direct harm or incites an immediate breach of the peace, it falls within the Chaplinsky framework and should be subject to legal restriction. This balanced approach honors the vital principle of free speech while recognizing that speech acts can, in particular contexts, inflict real and serious harm on individuals and society.

Question 5

Topic 5
In the R.A.V. case, the United States Supreme Court considered the city of St. Paul’s Bias- Motivated Crime Ordinance that provided:
Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender…shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Court concluded that this Ordinance would prohibit the expression of certain viewpoints and therefore was invalid and unconstitutional in that it contradicted the First Amendment guarantee of a right to free speech. Do you agree with the US Court’s conclusion? Why or why not?