In Defense of Prejudice: Protecting Incendiary Speech (Term Paper Sample)

Name
Course
Instructor
Date
In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech must be protected
In his article “In defense of prejudice: Why incendiary speech must be protected” Jonathan Rauch looks into hate speech that revolves around the racial and sexual lines. The purpose of his argument is that, instead of focusing so much on eliminating prejudice, society should be trying to educate people to embrace it. The fact is that, society is keen to bring to an end prejudice and eliminate hate yet the same society fights for the freedom of expression. He argues that with freedom comes hate crimes. Freedom of expression is not only characterized by the positive but the negative as well. A person who sends a hate message to a person of another race or sexual orientation is still within his or her rights to express his or her views. As an author and activist, he executes his text in a very effective manner. He does a very good job defending prejudice and uses real-life issues that are ailing society such as racism and homophobia. He ensures that his stand is not too imposing. However, he does make it clear that he does not support the notion of eradicating prejudice.
Rauch begins by stating, “War on prejudice is the most uncontroversial social topic in the U.S” (paragraph 1). His introduction is enough to capture the attention of readers. He deviates from the traditional views that try to eradicate prejudice by all means. He also makes an excellent argument when he states that, “eliminating prejudice means that everyone gets to hold the same prejudist viewpoints- that of the person in authority” (paragraph 19) From his argument, it is clear that he believes that society should use prejudice for its own benefit instead of eliminating it. He lets readers know that he is gay stating that, “in the subway, he heard a teenager say faggot and he was scared due to the nature of his sexuality” (paragraphs 28-29). In this article, he uses pathos, logos, and ethos to define his argument. At some point, he makes arguments that appeal to the emotions but have no logical backing. He also uses logos and ethos by insisting that elimination of prejudice would be harmful to the society. Moreover, he points out that, “it is meaningless to try and eliminate hate and prejudice”(paragraph 4). He tries to help readers understand that words alone cannot create violence. Going back to his experience in the subway, one is not a ‘faggot’ because another person has said so. One is also not a “colored monkey” because of others say so. Instead, we are humans regardless of what others say. He further states that “where people are allowed the freedom of expression, there is bound to be hate” (paragraph 3). He argues that instead of eradicating prejudice, society should try to understand it and correct it. His ar