Contemporary Issues in Political Theory

• This module focuses on the philosophical and ethical argument underlying a range of controversial debates in recent political theory.
• Demonstrate understanding of the main ethical arguments and theories involve in a range of deeply contested issues in contemporary politics.
• Apply theoretical ideas and arguments to evaluate real-world issues in contemporary politics.
• Articulate reasoned arguments that engage critically with relevant academic literature.

The word limit for the essay is 2,000 words and is worth 40% of your overall mark for the module.

ESSAY QUESTION: What limits, if any, should there be to freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech should have no limitations, as restricting it fundamentally contradicts the very principle of free expression. McKinnon argues that even deeply offensive speech, such as Holocaust denial, should not be legally prohibited, emphasizing that while it causes harm, it does not justify legal restriction. Similarly, Nadine Strossen, in her defense of free speech, maintains that suppressing hateful or controversial speech only drives it underground, where it festers without challenge. Both scholars highlight that the best response to harmful speech is more speech—counterarguments, education, and open debate—not censorship. John Stuart Mill’s classic defense of free expression further strengthens this view, as he asserts that even false ideas contribute to the pursuit of truth by forcing society to constantly reaffirm its beliefs. Therefore, any attempt to limit speech undermines democracy and individual autonomy, making it an unacceptable infringement on personal liberty.

Required Reading(all three reading have been uploaded)

• Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (1859), any edition, ch. 2.

• Waldron, Jeremy, The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press, 2012), ch. 5

• McKinnon, Catriona, “Should We Tolerate Holocaust Denial?” Res Publica, 13 (2007), pp. 9- 28

Further Reading

Brison, Susan J. “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech,” Ethics, 108 (1998), pp. 312–39
Feinberg, J. Offence to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)
Scanlon, Timothy, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1972), pp. 204–26.
Langton, Rae, “The Authority of Hate Speech,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, 3 (2017)
Cohen, Joshua, “Freedom of Expression,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22 (1993), pp. 207–63
Lægaard, Sune, “The Cartoon Controversy: Offence, Identity, Oppression?” Political Studies, 55 (2007), pp. 481–98
Matsuda, M. J., C. R. Lawrence III, R. Delgado & K. W. Crenshaw (eds.), Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech and the First Amendment (Westview Press, 1993)
Parekh, Bhikhu, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, 2nd ed. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), ch. 10
Fish, Stanley, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and it’s a Good Thing, Too (Oxford University Press, 1994)

General Expectations

1. Engage with the Question:
   o Answer the specific question directly. Do not provide a general overview or stray off-topic.
   o Focus on critically evaluating arguments rather than summarizing readings or lectures.
2. Critical Engagement:
   o Display independent thought and engage critically with key readings from the syllabus.
   o Use examples and counterarguments to showcase your critical evaluation skills.
3. Independent Research:
   o Include readings from the module’s required and further reading lists but also seek additional relevant academic sources.
   o Avoid excessive reliance on lecture content; demonstrate wider engagement and originality.
   Structure and Writing Style
4. Introduction:
   o Concise, one-paragraph introduction outlining your argument and structure.
   o Clearly state the thesis and briefly summarize the main points to be discussed.
5. Main Body:
   o Organize into 3-5 sections, each advancing the argument logically.
   o Use clear topic sentences to show how each section contributes to the overall argument.
   o Provide critical analysis of key arguments from the readings. For example, you might critically assess Mill’s argument for free speech or Waldron’s distinction between offense and dignity.
6. Conclusion:
   o Summarize the key points and reaffirm the argument. Avoid introducing new ideas.
7. Referencing:
   o Use a consistent referencing style (Harvard or Cambridge is recommended).
   o Include page references for direct quotes and paraphrased ideas.
   Assessment Criteria
   • Understanding: Show comprehensive knowledge of the topic and engage critically with the arguments presented in the literature.
   • Argumentation: Construct a compelling, coherent argument supported by relevant examples and counterexamples.
   • Engagement with Sources: Use an extensive range of high-quality academic sources, demonstrating critical engagement.
   • Structure and Style: Write clearly, logically, and persuasively. Adhere to academic conventions.