In On Liberty, Mill presents one of the most famous arguments in defense of free speech. The question of where we should place limits on free speech is as important today as it was then. Public university campuses have become a particular focus of this debate as of late. 
For this paper, please read Andrew Marantz’s piece in The New Yorker on right-wing speakers on university campuses and the New Republic piece by Aaron Hanlon (both posted in the Mill module), as well as the book you purchased by Sigal Ben-Porath. 
In your 8-page response paper, please focus on the following questions, starting from the Berkeley case discussed in Marantz’s piece:  
What are the positions presented in the Marantz article and how would Mill decide in this debate and why? What are the solutions proposed by Hanlon and Ben-Porath and what goals & values are these alternatives based on? (According to Hanlon and Ben-Porath, is there something specific about university campuses that make them a special case in the debate about free speech?) And last but not least, which of the arguments do you find most convincing and why? 
Start with a brief introduction to the Berkeley case presented by Marantz (including the different positions presented in the piece), then lay out how you think Mill would respond based on your reading of On Liberty. Then discuss the arguments put forward by Ben-Porath and Hanlon and how they would apply to the Berkeley case, before arguing which of the approaches you find most convincing. Please use textual evidence from the different authors whenever it is helpful to present their approach or to make your own case (and please cite properly).