Write a 1-page source analysis that uses TWO sources from your developing resear

Write a 1-page source analysis that uses TWO sources from your developing research project. Note: you are not summarising, instead you should focus on analysing the argument each source is making and how they differ, or not. One should be a longer source (peer-reviewed journal article, policy report, amicus brief, majority opinion of the court, dissenting opinion of the court) whose context and argument or findings you introduce and which you evaluate (you can use another source to evaluate or develop). Using another source’s counterargument or the findings from another source to develop your own counterargument is preferred, but not necessary.
Please include your MLA citation of the source(s) at the top of the page.
here is a student sample
1. Cole, David. “Why We Must Still Defend Free Speech.†The New York Review of Books, 2017 www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/why-we-must-still-defend-free-speech/
(Links to an external site.)
2. Sunstein, Cass R. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
A common characteristic of controversial topics is the multitude of viewpoints on the issue. Free Speech Absolutists believe that Freedom of Speech must be protected at all costs, and those in opposition believe that regulated speech is necessary for a democracy to function. This does not mean that they believe all speech should be regulated, but that laws concerning speech need reform in order to redefine the line between what should fall under protected speech. Legal Scholar Cass Sunstein believes that hate speech should be regulated on college campuses. “[A] university,” he argues, “can prevent students from using words in a way that is not plausibly part of democratic deliberation about an issue†(163). Note that while he does believe it should be regulated, it should not be regulated in a way that prevents people from expressing their opinions. Instead, it must be regulated to ensure people express those opinions in a form that contributes to democratic deliberation of issue and not just an expression of hatred. Those who believe that hate speech needs to be protected argue that “free speech is indivisible,” meaning that if if the government were to be granted with the right to shush controversial ideas, this could lead to more censorship of different types of speech by the government. ACLU Director David Cole emphasizes this belief when he states, “When we grant the government the power to suppress controversial ideas, we are all subject to censorship by the state.†Those who are free speech absolutists, like the ACLU, believe that freedom of speech including hate speech, is important for the continuance of the “marketplace of ideas.” The free speech absolutists feel that if hate speech were to be limited this would jeopardize the marketplace of ideas and ultimately lead to a decline in expression and important intellectual debate that allows for value discoveries of truth. To the free speech absolutists, when it comes to combating hate speech, the most powerful tool is an increase in speech and expression. More expression would allow people to confront those who are racist, sexist, etc and inform them of their opinions in hopes of convincing them of their side, much like a debate. These absolutists argue that if hate speech were to be limited on college campuses it would do a great disservice to all students by not allowing them to learn the skills they need to combat this sort of speech in the real world. David Cole believes that free speech is not part of a level playing field. For example, the right to own property benefits the billionaire’s more than it benefits the poor, just like the right to privacy benefits those with a home more than it does the homeless (Cole). Cole acknowledges the argument that the first amendment needs to be different in this regard because if freedom of speech is unequal then the marketplace of ideas will suffer. However, Cole claims that the marketplace of ideas is a merely a metaphor, not a clear cut way to identify the truth, but a choice that can lead to it. He states, “It maintains only that it is better for the state to remain neutral than to dictate what is true and suppress the rest†(Cole). However, those like Cass Sunstein, who advocate for some type of regulation of hate speech believe that freedom of speech should never compromise the fourteenth amendment which entitles all Americans to equal protection of the law and their rights. If not everyone has a voice in the marketplace, if some are scared into silence by the very law enforcers who are supposed to guarantee and protect these rights, then free speech is a mere idea, not a guarantee.