Lee Bollinger, rejecting traditional models of the defense of free spe

Question

Aristotle RC 99 - Passage 88     
   Lee Bollinger, rejecting traditional models of the defense of free speech as inadequate, defends it with a model designed to take into account changes in the function of speech attributable to the emergence of a society marked by stability and widespread consensus on essential values. This new, ―self-restraint model justifies free speech from a different perspective. Although staunchly supporting free speech, the self-restraint model inverts the relationship between speech and tolerance. Under traditional models, the value of tolerance is subordinated to the value of speech. The self-restraint model, however, often subordinates the value of speech to that of tolerance. Traditional justifications of the free speech principle originated in the belief that speech is entitled to greater tolerance than other kinds of activity.

A review of the traditional justifications reveals two distinct models of explanation. Although both these models link the need to protect speech to its inherent value, they agree on little else. According to the classical model, freedom of speech serves an indispensable function in democratic self-government. Meiklejohn uses the traditional New England town meeting as a paradigm for a self-governing society.

From this perspective, the free speech principle need only protect political speech—the facts, theories, and opinions relating to any issue on which the citizens must vote. Meiklejohn insists that even extremist views cannot be withheld from voting citizens, if these views bear on any public issue. Protection of free speech, including extremist political speech, serves the collective interests of a self-governing society, made up of all rational, equal, and fully participating citizens. Predicated on the belief that speech itself is valuable, this theory ascribes positive value to a very broad range of speech, including any that may be offensive to many people.

In contrast to the serene and optimistic, the fortress model is built on a foundation of pessimism, individualism, relativism, and self-doubt. According to Holmes, speech represents not so much a free marketplace of ideas as a kind of ―counsel of despair.‖ Freedom of speech is necessary to the discovery of truth; but, although any belief held by an individual is ultimately likely to prove false, individuals tend to feel certain about their beliefs and consequently justified in requiring others to conform. From Holmes‘ perspective, the government and any majority of the people pose a great danger of intolerance. In order to protect speech from the natural tendency to censor nonconforming views, the fortress model prescribes overprotection of speech. This strategy establishes a broad "buffer zone" that encompasses extremist speech because its protection substantially diminishes the probability that inherently valuable speech will be suppressed. Even if speech is so extreme that it cannot seriously be considered to contribute to the discovery of truth—like the most extreme views propounded by the Nazis—it still ought not to be censored, for once unleashed censorship cannot be reasonably expected to remain confined to worthless views.   1 
 B 
 1. It can be inferred from the passage that speech is viewed as a fundamental value in the:

I.  classical model.
 II.  fortress model.
 III.  self-restraint model.

A. I only
B. I and II only
C. II and III only
D. I, II and III
E. I and III only

2 
 B 
 2. Turning an eye to the greater structure of the passage, which of the following best describes the function of the last three paragraphs of the passage?

A. The author describes two theories and links each to the historical situation in which it was proposed.
B. The author refers to a traditional way of viewing a question and examines two contrasting approaches that spring from that view.
C. The author establishes contrasts between two approaches to a question and then explores their points of agreement.
D. The author discusses two theories and the opposed conclusions that follow from them.
E. The author reconciles two competing theories for a particular phenomenon

3 
 B 
 3. The author indicates that Meiklejohn‘s and Holmes‘ understanding of free speech is similar in that both:

A. believe that free speech ultimately leads to the discovery of truth.
B. favour extending the right of speech to those who express extremist doctrines.
C. consider that censorship involves the suppression of valuable speech.
D. justify free speech by referring to the citizen‘s right to be informed of all views relevant to public issues.
E. are against blindly supporting free speech

Difficulty Level:   750

New Project RC Butler 2019  -  Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday   
Passage # 91, Date : 18-MAR-2019
 This post is a part of New Project RC Butler 2019 .  Click here for Details

ruchik · Accepted Answer

1. It can be inferred from the passage that speech is viewed as a fundamental value in the:

I. classical model.
II. fortress model.
III. self-restraint model.

Answer to above question lies in the below line of the paragraph.
 Although both these models link the need to protect speech to its inherent value, they agree on little else. 
The self-restraint model, however, often subordinates the value of speech to that of tolerance. 
Hence both the traditional model is the correct answer so B

2. Turning an eye to the greater structure of the passage, which of the following best describes the function of the last three paragraphs of the passage?

A. The author describes two theories and links each to the historical situation in which it was proposed. -  Incorrect . There is no historical situation related to author's explanation of two traditional approach.
B. The author refers to a traditional way of viewing a question and examines two contrasting approaches that spring from that view. -  Correct  The author mentions "A review of the traditional justifications reveals two distinct models of explanation" and then goes into examining the two theories.
C. The author establishes contrasts between two approaches to a question and then explores their points of agreement. -  Incorrect . There is no exploration of points of agreement and there is no emphasis on pointing out the contrast. 
D. The author discusses two theories and the opposed conclusions that follow from them.  Incorrect  - the two theories do not have opposite conclusion.
E. The author reconciles two competing theories for a particular phenomenon. -  Incorrect  There is no reconciliation between the two theories in the last 3 paragraphs.

3. The author indicates that Meiklejohn‘s and Holmes‘ understanding of free speech is similar in that both:

A. believe that free speech ultimately leads to the discovery of truth. -  Incorrect  Only the fortress model explicitly states tha free speech leads to discovery of truth.
B. favour extending the right of speech to those who express extremist doctrines. -  Correct.  Both theories advocate the protection of extremist views.
C. consider that censorship involves the suppression of valuable speech. -  Incorrect  Only fortress model considers the censorship as a tool to suppress valuable speech.
D. justify free speech by referring to the citizen‘s right to be informed of all views relevant to public issues. -  Incorrect  There is no mention of views relevant to public issues in fortress model.
E. are against blindly supporting free speech -  Incorrect  none of the model states this statement.

anmit123 · Answer

Q1
Passage-'Under traditional models, the value of tolerance is subordinated to the value of speech. The self-restraint model, however, often subordinates the value of speech to that of tolerance.'
i.e. in the self restraint model, tolerance is fundamental
only 1 and 2 is the answer
Ans:B

Q2
Para 2-'A review of the traditional justifications reveals two distinct models of explanation.'
After that the author talks about classical model and the fortress model
Therefore, answer is B

Q3

Holmes (last para)-'Even if speech is so extreme that it cannot seriously be considered to contribute to the discovery of truth—like the most extreme views propounded by the Nazis—it still ought not to be censored'
'Even if speech is so extreme that it cannot seriously be considered to contribute to the discovery of truth—like the most extreme views propounded by the Nazis—it still ought not to be censored'
therefore as per passage, Answer is B

Teitsuya · Answer

AgarwalArpit20

Can you give the official explanation of question 1 and 3?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. It can be inferred from the passage that speech is viewed as a fundamental value in the:

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Another Roman Numeral question with the same set-up. The question is trickily worded; take time to decipher it. What model would criticize laws prohibiting intolerant speech? In other words, what model would tolerate intolerant speech? While the classical model only requires tolerance for political speech and the self-restraint model actually subordinates free speech to tolerance, the fortress model protects all speech, and  (B)  is therefore the correct answer.

(A):  Opposite. As described above.

(B): The correct answer

(C):  Opposite. As above.

(D):  Opposite. As above.

(E):  Opposite. As above.

Answer: B

3. The author indicates that Meiklejohn‘s and Holmes‘ understanding of free speech is similar in that both:

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

What do the two traditional models have in common? Predict: They both value free speech above tolerance, and therefore tolerate extremist speech.  (B)  rewards the careful prediction.

(A):  Faulty Use of Detail. This is mentioned as a hallmark of the fortress model, but not mentioned when discussing the classical model.

(B): The correct answer

(C):  Faulty Use of Detail.  (C)  is another of Holmes‘ views: censoring speech eventually leads to the censorship of both useful and worthless views.

(D):  Faulty Use of Detail. This is a tenet of the classical model, but not the fortress model.

(E):  Out of scope.

Answer: B

JayBKK · Answer

From the passage,

- Bolinger proposes the self-restraint model that free speech is based on power, which opposes the traditional views, the classic model, and the fortress model.
- Meiklejohn suggests, based on the classic model, that every opinion is valuable; thus, not a single opinion should've been censored, even the extreme one.
- While Holmes's idea in the fortress model is that free speech is necessary for the discovery of the truth, the extreme opinion should've been protected.

Q1: Which model views speech as a fundamental for power?
Answer is clearly the traditional views (= the classic and the fortress)

Q2: The purpose of the last three paragraphs
Answer: Based on my summary, last three paragraphs mention both traditional models which extended after the author states his reviews that

Q3: The similarity of each traditional models
Answer: As I summarized, both favor extremist opinion protection

Lee Bollinger, rejecting traditional models of the defense of free spe

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Lee Bollinger, rejecting traditional models of the defense of free spe

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards