This is my first attempt at a BMAT essay, just to gauge where I am. Would be grateful if anyone is willing to give it a rough mark.
The Prompt (from a 2014 pp):
There is no such thing as dangerous speech; it is up to people to choose how they react. Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue to the contrary that there can be instances of dangerous speech. To what extent should a society put limitations on speech or text that it considers threatening?
The statement proposes that dangerous speech does not exist, but is rather categorised as dangerous due to the reactions is receives. It states that the description of dangerous is falsely attributed to the speech rather than the listeners. In our current climate, in the rise of reported ‘hate speech’ which is deemed dangerous, there is varying opinions on the statement, and I aim to present them to you.
‘Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction’. If we ascribe one of Newton’s Laws to this argument, it can be perceived that the statement is false. Using Newton’s principle, the logic in context of the statement, is that if the reaction of the people is dangerous, so must the speech be. It determines that the reaction of the people is a direct consequence of the speech and that choice holds no prevalence. The reaction is equal in terms of nature (both the reaction and speech are dangerous) and opposite in terms of the intended audience (a speech is to people, and the reaction is to the speech and those who possibly agree/disagree with it). This means that speech can be dangerous. An example of dangerous speech is indoctrination to minors. In this case choice again holds no prevalence, because those who hear the speech are malleable. In WW2 Hitler implemented youth programs, targeted at young children who are impressionable. Their programs aimed to teach children dangerous beliefs, and resulted in a generation of radical children, steadfast in their dangerous beliefs.
On the other hand, one could agree with the statement, because as humans we are only in control of ourselves. This principle can largely be seen in most religions, as they all commonly promote pacifist views. For example, Jesus told his followers to turn their other cheek in offering to those who hit them. This serves as a metaphor to suggest that if someone attacks you, whether mentally, physically or verbally, retaliation should never be sought. This sentiment agrees with the statement, because it proposes we as humans have the power to render dangerous speech powerless, through our choice to resist dangerous reactions.
Society should not limit speech or text that is threatening, because it would be a violation of the right to free speech. In such debates, we ought to remember that freedom of expression does not equate to freedom of consequence. If limitations were imposed on speech and text, there would also have to be discussions on what is deemed acceptable to say, which is a subjective argument and thus futile. Limiting expression will not change people's minds and to progress as a society, the aim should be to encourage fruitful and respectful discussions rather than censoring and limiting the expression of opinions we do not agree with.