In this assignment, your task is to prepare a video essay of 6-8 minutes where you defend a position on one of the political-moral issues we have discussed in Parts II-IV of this course. You may choose from among the following prompts, or you may develop your own topic in consultation with the instructor or with your teaching assistant:
-
- Should there be any limits on freedom of speech at a university like Northwestern?
Assignment requirements: In your presentation, you should put forward a position on one of the moral issues we have considered in this course and defend that position with argument. Your presentation should include careful considerations of the arguments of at least one of the philosophers we have studied in this course. In your presentation, you should also articulate and reply to a possible objection to your position.
You should make use of visual aids such as PowerPoint slides. Your video presentation should exhibit good academic practices, including the proper citing of sources. Citations can be given in the form of footnotes or in-text citations on your slides. Depending on your citation method, you may also need to include a “Works Cited” slide at the end.
If for any reason you do not wish to produce a video presentation, you may instead submit an essay of 5-6 pages (approximately 1250-1500 words) instead. Your essay should fulfill the same requirements given above.
In my paper I plan to argue about the implications of limiting freedom of Speech in any capacity. There is no way in which speech can be limited without creating a rift between the barrier of speech and equality. If one’s speech is withheld, their intrinsic United States citizen rights would be impeded on. At the same time, the cases for limiting one’s speech are compelling, as one’s freedom to speech could undoubtedly mess with another person’s rights. If one were to speak out and say such that insights violence on another person or persons, they would be speaking in a way which warranted limitation. An individual should be able to speak freely, as long as what they are publicizing does not directly impede on another individuals rights, wether this be their right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, and/or life.
Freedom of speech is one’s natural U.S. citizen right. To limit such speech unwarrantedly would be a violation of these rights and would not be appropriate at Northwestern. Alternatively, speech from one can impede another individuals rights, leading to necessary limitations. Limiting speech should never be required, although in the case of protecting others and their rights, there are warranted guidelines.