Legal Origins of Ethics in Public Speaking

The First Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most cherished and debated in the Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech . . . or of the press” has been discussed in many contexts for over two hundred and thirty years. Thomas Emerson (1970), a Constitutional scholar and Yale Law Professor, asserted that freedom of expression is more than just a right. It is a necessity for having the kind of society we want as Americans. Although we think of “freedom of the press” today as referring to mass media and journalism, “press” here refers to publishing of books, magazines, pamphlets, and Internet sites by anyone.

One of the bases of the First Amendment is an essay written by John Milton in the 1600s, Aereopagitica. This essay on freedom of speech is where the phrases “free marketplace of ideas” and “truth will arise from debate of all ideas” originated. Milton lived in a time when the King of England or Parliament could “censor” published material or speakers, either by keeping it from being published and distributed (later called “prior restraint”), by destroying the publications afterward, or by punishing the producers of the content, sometimes harshly.

In the twentieth century, “freedom of speech” has been generalized into a freedom of expression. This was especially true in the important Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment in the 1930s through 1970s. According to Emerson (1970), such expression is important to our development as human beings individually and in a democracy. Thanks to these historical precedents, we can express ourselves freely in our communities and classrooms, keeping in mind ethical responsibilities to present serious, honest, factual, and well-supported messages as a matter of respect to your listeners. Additionally, although the First Amendment to the Constitution is usually interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts to mean almost no restrictions on freedom of expression, there are a few instances in which the government is held to have a “compelling interest” in controlling, stopping, or preventing certain types of free expression.

One of these instances has to do with threats on the life of the President of the United States, although threats of physical harm against anyone might also result in penalties. Another instance of restrictions on freedom of expression is in those cases where the speaker has the opportunity, means, and likelihood of inciting an audience to violence (this is the old “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre” example). The government has also allowed local governments to have reasonable requirements to avoid mobs or public danger or to uphold community standards, such as permits for parades or limiting how many people can meet in a certain size of building. “Reasonable” is sometimes a matter of debate, as the extensive history of Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment shows.

Another type of restriction on freedom of speech is defamatory speech, which is defined in the United States as:

a false statement of fact that damages a person’s character, fame or reputation. It must be a false statement of fact; statements of opinion, however insulting they may be, cannot be defamation under U.S. law. Under U.S. defamation law, there are different standards for public officials [and public figures] and private individuals. (U.S. Department of State, 2013)

With the Internet and social media, these issues become more complicated, of course. In the past someone could express himself or herself only in limited ways: standing on a street corner, attending a public meeting, putting the words on paper and distributing them, or maybe getting on radio or television (if allowed or if wealthy). Today, almost anyone with a laptop, a webcam, an ISP, and technical know-how can be as powerful in getting a message to the masses as someone owning a newspaper one hundred years ago. While most people use technology and the Internet for fun, profit, or self-expression, some use it for hurt—bullying, defamation, even spreading terrorism. The judicial system is trying to keep up with the challenges that the digital age brings to protecting free expression while sheltering us from the negative consequences of some forms of free expression.

Cultural and Religious Origins of Ethics in Communication

It is hard to separate life aspects such as legal, cultural, religious, and social. Many Americans would say they hold to the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” The Golden Rule is seen as a positive expression of fairness, equity, and trust. Even if there is no legal ruling hanging over us, we expect honest communication and return it. The Golden Rule is related to and a step beyond the “Law of Reciprocity” that determines so much of our social interaction. We also value straightforwardness; respect for the individual’s freedom of choice; getting access to full information; consistency between action and words; taking responsibility for one’s own mistakes (sometimes necessitating an apology and accepting consequences); and protection of privacy. We fear public humiliation and do not want to violate community norms. We also want to see ourselves as honest and ethical people.

Most religions teach the value of truthfulness and that lying intentionally is wrong. The Book of Proverbs, the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, and the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles all point to the immorality of lying and the destruction lying brings personally and communally. Quranic teaching condemns lying, and Buddhism teaches that followers should not deliberately lie. Individuals internalize the norms of their cultures and religions and make them work for themselves. Sometimes we try to find justification when we are untruthful, such as to smooth over relationships and say things that serve as “social lubrication” (Floyd, 2017). Upbringing and family teachings, religious values, experiences, peers, and just plain old “gut reaction” as well as understanding of the First Amendment contribute to our ethical behavior.

Philosophers and Communication Ethics

Philosophers throughout history have also written on the subject of communication and public speaking ethics. In fact, one of the first philosophers, Plato, objected to the way rhetoric was practiced in his day, because “it made the worse case appear the better.” In other words, the professional public speakers, who could be hired to defend someone in court or the assembly, knew and used techniques that could deceive audiences and turn them from truth. Aristotle responded to this concern from his teacher Plato in his work, Rhetoric. Later, Quintilian, a Roman teacher of rhetoric, wrote that rhetoric was “the good man speaking well,” meaning the speaker must meet the Roman Republic’s definition of a virtuous man.

In more modern times, English philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) introduced utilitarianism, which presents the ethic of “The greatest good for the greatest number;” that is, whatever benefits the most people is right. A related philosophy, pragmatism, was first discussed by Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914). Pragmatists judge actions by their practical consequences. Some ethicists would differ with the pragmatic position, claiming it supports an “ends justify the means” philosophy. When we use the phrase “the ends justify the means,” we are saying that a generally unethical action (intentional misstatement of truth, withholding information, or taking any someone’s freedom of choice) is ethical as long as something good comes from it. Many scholars of ethical communication would disagree with the “ends justify the means” philosophy.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) proposed what was been called the Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.” To paraphrase, any behavior we engage in should be what we think everyone else on the planet should do ethically. In the twentieth century, Jean-Paul Sartre and others called “existentialists” emphasized that the ability and necessity to freely choose our actions is what makes us human, but we are accountable for all our choices. Jurgen Habermas, a more recent scholar, emphasizes the “equal opportunity for participation” of the communication partners (Johannessen, Valde, & Whedbe, 2008).

This very brief overview of ethics in general and in communication specifically is designed to let you know that the best minds have grappled with what is right and wrong when it comes to expression. But what is the practical application? We believe it is adherence to the factual truth and respect for your audience: in this case, your classmates, peers, and your instructor. An individual might be guided by the Categorical Imperative approach, the pragmatic philosophy, the Judeo-Christian view of “thou shalt not lie” and “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), the Golden Rule, freedom with accountability, or some other view. However, respect for your audience means that you will do your best to present factual, well-documented information designed to improve their lives and help them make informed, intelligent decisions with it.

In addition to respect for the humanity, intelligence, and dignity of your audience, you should be conscious of two other aspects related to ethics of communication: credibility and plagiarism.

Types of Plagiarism

In our long experience of teaching, we have encountered many instances of students presenting work they claim to be original and their own when it is not. We have also seen that students often do not intend to plagiarize but, due to poor training in high school, still are committing an act that could result in a failing grade or worse. Generally, there are three levels of plagiarism: stealing, sneaking, and borrowing. Sometimes these types of plagiarism are intentional, and sometimes they occur unintentionally (you may not know you are plagiarizing). However, as everyone knows, “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.” So let’s familiarize you with how plagiarism occurs in order to prevent it from happening.

Stealing

There is a saying in academia: “If you steal from one source, that is plagiarism; if you steal from twelve, that is scholarship.” Whoever originated this saying may have intended for it to be humorous, but it is a misrepresentation of both plagiarism and scholarship.

No one wants to be the victim of theft; if it has ever happened to you, you know how awful it feels. When a student takes an essay, research paper, speech, or outline completely from another source, whether it is a classmate who submitted it for another instructor, from some sort of online essay mill, or from elsewhere, this is an act of theft no better or worse than going into a store and shoplifting. The wrongness of the act is compounded by the fact that then the student lies about it being his or her own. If you are tempted to do this, run the other way. Your instructor will probably have no mercy on you, and probably neither will the student conduct council.

Most colleges and universities have a policy that penalizes or forbids “self-plagiarism.” This means that you can’t use a paper or outline that you presented in another class a second time. You may think, “How can this be plagiarism or wrong if I wrote both and in my work I cited sources correctly?” The main reason is that by submitting it to your instructor, you are still claiming it is original, first-time work for the assignment in that particular class. Your instructor may not mind if you use some of the same sources from the first time it was submitted, but he or she expects you to follow the instructions for the assignment and prepare an original assignment. In a sense, this situation is also a case of unfairness, since the other students do not have the advantage of having written the paper or outline already.

Another issue that often comes up with students happens when two or more students, perhaps in the same section or different sections of the same course or even the same instructor, submit the same assignment. When confronted, the student say, “We worked on it together.” If your instructor wants you to work collaboratively, they will make that clear. Otherwise, do not do this–the situation usually ends quite badly for students.

Sneaking

In “sneaking plagiarism,” instead of taking work as a whole from another source, the student will copy two out of every three sentences and mix them up so they don’t appear in the same order as in the original work. Perhaps the student will add a fresh introduction, a personal example or two, and an original conclusion. This “sneaky” plagiarism is easy today due to the Internet and the word processing functions of cutting and pasting.

In fact, many students do not see this as the same thing as stealing because they think “I did some research, I looked some stuff up, and I added some of my own work.” Unfortunately, this approach is only marginally better than stealing and will probably end up in the same penalties as the first type of plagiarism. Why? Because no source has been credited, and the student has “misappropriated” the expression of the ideas as well as the ideas themselves. This type of plagiarism can lead to copyright violation if the work with the plagiarism is published.

Most of the time students do not have to worry about copyright violation when they correctly use and cite material from a source. This is because in academic environments, “fair use” is the rule. In short, you are not making any money from using the copyrighted material, such as from a published book. You are only using it for learning purposes and not to make money, so “quoting” (using verbatim) a small amount of the material with proper citation is acceptable for a college class.

If, however, you were going to try to publish and sell an article or book and “borrowed” a large section of material without specifically obtaining permission from the original author, you would be guilty of copyright violation and by extension make your organization or company also guilty. When you enter your career field, the “fair use” principle no longer applies and you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holder and pay fees to use all or portions of a work. For more information on this very important and often misunderstood subject, visit the Creative Commons website, the Library of Congress, and the Stanford University site given earlier.

One area in speeches where students are not careful about citing is on their presentational slides. If a graphic or photo is borrowed from a website (that is, you did not design it), there should be a citation in small letters on the slide. The same would be true of borrowed quotations, data, and ideas. Students also like to put their “works cited” or “references” on the last slide, but this really does not help the audience or get around the possibility of plagiarism.

Borrowing

The third type of plagiarism is “borrowing.” In this case, the student is not stealing wholesale. They may actually even give credit for the material, either correctly or incorrectly. He might say, “According to the official website of . . .” or “As found in an article in the Journal of Psychology, Dr. John Smith wrote . . .” Sounds good, right? Well, yes and no. It depends on whether the student has borrowed in a “sneaky way” (cutting and pasting passages together but this time indicating where the sections came from) or if the student is using the ideas but not the exact wording. In other words, has the student adequately, correctly, and honestly paraphrased or summarized the borrowed material, or just “strung the sources together” with some “according to’s”?

Students often are puzzled about what and when to cite borrowed material from sources. At this point, your instructor may have specific instructions, and you should always follow those first. However, in most cases you can go by the “repeated information” rule. If you are doing research and access ten sources, and over half of them have the same piece of information (usually a historical or scientific fact, such as a date), you can assume this is “common knowledge.” That is, it is common to anyone who knows anything about the subject, and then you do not have to have a citation. If you find a piece of information in one source only, it probably represents the original research or viewpoint of that writer, and should be cited clearly. On the other hand, there are exceptions. An often-cited or used piece of information has an original source, such as a government agency, and you would be better off to find the original source and cite that. Secondly, citing sources adds to your credibility as a prepared speaker. Again, your instructor’s directions on what and how much your cite bear upon this advice. Generally, it is better to err on the side of citing more than less.

Ethically Crediting Sources

In using source material correctly, a speaker does three things:

1. They clearly cite the source of the information. It is here that the oral mode of communication differs from the written mode. In a paper, such as for literature, you would only need to include a parenthetical citation such as (Jones 78) for Modern Language Association (MLA) format, indicating that a writer named Jones contributed this idea on page 78 of a source that the reader can find on the Works Cited Page. In a paper for a class in the social sciences, an American Psychological Association (APA) format citation would be (Jones, 2012) or (Jones, 2012, p. 78). The first would be used if you summarized or paraphrased information from the source, and second (with the page number) is used to indicate the words were quoted exactly from a source. Obviously, in that case, quotation marks are used around the quoted material. In both cases, if the reader wants more information, it can be found on the References Page (APA) or Works Cited Page (MLA).

   (Note: This text and its examples use APA because the Communication discipline is considered a social science. As advised elsewhere, use the format your instructor directs you to use.)

   A speech is quite different. Saying “According to Jones, p. 78,” really does very little for the audience. They can’t turn to the back of the paper. They don’t have a way, other than oral communication, to understand the type of information being cited, how recent it is, the credibility of the author you are citing and why you think he or she is a valid source, or the title of the work. It is necessary in a speech to give more complete information that would help the audience understand its value and origin. The page number, the publishing company, and city it was published in are probably not important, but what is important is whether it is a website, a scholarly article, or a book; whether it was written in 1950 or 2010; and what is the position, background, or credentials of the source.

   So, instead of “According to Jones, p. 78,” a better approach would be,

   “According to Dr. Samuel Jones, Head of Cardiology at Vanderbilt University, in a 2017 article in a prestigious medical journal…”

   Or

   “In her 2012 book, The Iraq War in Context, historian Mary Smith of the University of Georgia states that…”

   Or

   “In consulting the website for the American Humane Society, I found these statistics about animal abuse compiled by the Society in 2018…”

   This approach shows more clearly that you have done proper research to support your ideas and arguments. It also allows your audience to find the material if they want more information. Notice that in all three examples the citation precedes the fact or information being cited. This order allows the audience to recognize the borrowed material better. The use of a clear citation up-front makes it more noticeable as well as more credible to the audience.

2. The speaker should take special care to use information that is in context and relevant. This step takes more critical thinking skills. For example, it is often easy to misinterpret statistical information (more on that in Chapter 7), or to take a quotation from an expert in one field and apply it to another field. It is also important to label facts as facts and opinions as opinions, especially when dealing with controversial subjects. In addition, be sure you understand the material you are citing before using it. If you are unsure of any words, look their definitions up so you are sure to be using the material as it is intended. Finally, it is important that you understand the type of publication or source you are using, for example, a scholarly publication in contrast to a journalistic one.

3. The speaker should phrase or summarize the ideas of the source into his or her own words. Paraphrasing, which is putting the words and ideas of others into one’s own authentic or personal language, is often misunderstood by students. Your instructor may walk you through an exercise to help your class understand that paraphrasing is not changing 10% of the words in a long quotation (such as two or three out of twenty) but still keeping most of the vocabulary and word order (called syntax) of the source. You should compose the information in your own “voice” or way of expressing yourself.

   In fact, you would be better off to think in terms of summarizing your source material rather than paraphrasing. For one thing, you will be less likely to use too much of the original and therefore skirt the edge of plagiarism. Secondly, you will usually want to put the main arguments of a source in your own words to make it shorter. Keep in mind in this section we are discussing oral citation, not citation in written documents. For example, direct quotations is not frequently used in APA, whereas in MLA, because literature is the subject, direct quotation is more common. Other rules apply to written uses of the formats.

Here is an example of an original source and three possible ways to deal with it.

Original information, posted on CNN.com website, October 31, 2015:

“The biggest federal inmate release on record will take place this weekend. About 6,600 inmates will be released, with 16,500 expected to get out the first year. More than 40,000 federal felons could be released early over the next several years, the U.S. Sentencing Commission said. The sentencing commission decided a year ago to lower maximum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and to make the change retro-active, with the inmate releases effective November 1, 2015. Sentences were reduced an average of 18%, the commission said. Early release will be a challenge for the inmates as well as the judicial bureaucracy” (Casarez, 2015).

With that as our original source, which of the following is truly paraphrasing?

The CNN News website says the federal government is releasing 40,000 felons from prison in the next few years.

According to a report posted on CNN’s website on October 31 of 2015, the federal government’s Sentencing Commission is beginning to release prisoners in November based on a decision made in 2014. That decision was to make maximum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders shorter by an average of 18%. Over the next several years over 40,000 federal felons could be let go. However, this policy change to early release will not be easy for the justice system or those released.

The largest release ever of federal inmates will take place in early November. At first 6,600 inmates will be released, and then over 16,000 over the first year. The U.S. Sentencing Commission says it could release over 40,000 federal felons over the upcoming years because the sentencing commission decided a year ago to lessen maximum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and to make this happen for those already in jail. When the Sentencing Commission says that when it made that decision, the sentences were reduced an average of 18%. Early release will be a challenge for the felons as well as the judicial system. This came from a story on CNN News website in later October 2015.

If you chose the second citation, you would be correct. The first version does not really interpret the original statement correctly, and the third choice imitates the original almost entirely. Choice 2, on the other hand, is in completely different language and identifies the source of the information clearly and at the beginning.

This exercise may raise the question, “Should I always paraphrase or summarize rather than directly quote a source?” There are times when it is appropriate to use a source’s exact wording, but quoting a source exactly should be done sparingly—sort of like using hot sauce! You should have a good reason for it, such as that the source is highly respected, has said the idea in a compelling way, or the material is well known and others would recognize it. If you do, you should make it clear you are quoting them exactly by the way you introduce and end the borrowed material.

Ethics of Communication, Civil Discourse, and Venues

Throughout history in free societies, and sometimes not-so-free ones, leaders in politics and communication have devised ways of structuring rhetorical discourse. These various structures or venues have used rules to allow equality of time, fairness, civility, and different ways of addressing problems and issues under discussion. Sometimes these structures have worked against everyone having an equal voice, have silenced voices, or insisted that everyone speak according to the predominant or majority mode of discourse (Dillard-Knox, 2014). Working under the principle that time and mediums of communication are limited, even in our recent history powerful groups could find ways to push some discourse out of the mainstream. The advent of the Internet changed a great deal of those practices.

An example from the world of mass media was the “fairness doctrine” that was used in the 1960s and 1970s in broadcasting. If a television or radio station licensed by the Federal Communication Commission (which all were required to be) allowed a speaker of one political party or viewpoint airtime, their opponent for office or someone on the other side of the debate could petition for equal airtime from the station and expect to get it. Of course, stations found ways to get around the FCC policy, and the stations could schedule the opposing voice at an “inconvenient” or less costly time (in terms of what the station could charge for advertising revenue because they had a larger audience). But there is evidence that even presidents used this doctrine to keep their opponents from getting equal exposure on the networks (Matzko, 2020). Remember, at that time, there were really only four television networks for most people: ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. (Exceptions existed, of course, but the vast majority of Americans viewed those networks.)

Nowadays the concept of equal time makes no sense, and the FCC repealed the fairness doctrine in 1987. We all know of radio stations that play nothing but conservative talk radio; there are hundreds of podcasts on any side of the political spectrum; we can watch “television” programming on any number of platforms; and the Internet, despite attempts to control it, is still the Wild West. Unfortunately, this panoply of ways to send messages has had other effects on our public discourse, or at least has led many critics to believe our public discourse has become weakened, coarsened, and less effective. Whether this is entirely true is a subject of debate; we can find many examples in the past of some pretty ugly accusations and slurs thrown at political opponents. What is different today is that more people have access to more communication channels not just as consumers but also as creators, and the mechanisms for control are less evident or powerful (but still there). Everyone can have a blog today, and no one is really going to edit or censor it.

Therefore, in the past formats for discourse have been developed to expedite civility, quality, and equality in the speech of its participants. Here are a few:

Debate. The run-up to Election Year 2020 saw over twenty Democratic candidates, at least at one point, running for president; 2016 saw a large number of Republican candidates. Putting all these candidates on a stage to have what was called a “debate” proved challenging. No one was really happy with these arrangements; some candidates got excluded because of lack of support in the polls or amount of funds raised; some critics of the debates complained that candidates did not really receive equal time. In this writer’s opinions, the television media has evolved to a point that it values and privileges “zingers,” “gotchas,” and sound bites rather than explained arguments for a position that everyone can understand. The moderators, usually high-profile journalists, ask pre-established questions which may or may not elicit relevant responses.

All this is opposite of real debate. Real debate involves two speakers (or two teams of two speakers in academic or scholastic debate) who argue for or against the truth of a proposition—one statement of fact, definition, value, or policy (see chapter 13). In some cases, the “con” or “negative” debater need only prove why the affirmative or “pro” debater’s arguments are wrong, not the opposite of the proposition. (This is similar to a defense lawyer not having to prove a defendant’s innocence, only that the prosecuting lawyer’s arguments are wrong or the case unproven.) Each debater is allowed strict time limits for their opening arguments and for rebuttals. On college debate teams, for instance, the format is as follows:

• First Affirmative Constructive 8 minutes
• First Negative Constructive 8 minutes
• Second Affirmative Constructive 8 minutes
• Second Negative Constructive 8 minutes
• First Negative Rebuttal 4 minutes
• First Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes
• Second Negative Rebuttal 4 minutes
• Second Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes

In each speech, there are specific functions the debater must play.

While this format may not seem like it would lead to very entertaining debates, the point is that it is eminently fair, based on evidence and logic, and unlikely to encourage “zingers,” “bad faith arguments,” or ad hominem arguments (personal attacks). Also, the judge of the debate does not base her decision on whom she agrees with more, but which one presented arguments, answered their opponents’ points (thoroughly and not dropping or ignoring any of them), and used relevant facts and support. Therefore, the next time you watch a political debate, you might do well to ask not, “Who do I agree with more because they say what I believe (an example of confirmation bias)” but “Who stays on the topic or question and who provides real facts from a source?”

One of the most disheartening results of the noisy, open media world today (including social media) is that many have come to believe that “winning” a debate means shouting over others or shouting them out, “canceling” dissenting viewpoints, personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed (even about personal appearance or background), or misplaced and insulting humor. None of these have a place in civil discourse, which in this context means speaking and listening with civility. Civility in discourse is more than just simple politeness, although that would be a good place to start. True civil discourse values logic and evidence, critical thinking and listening, relevance of response, respect for the personhood of those with whom one disagrees, and recognition as Thomas Emerson wrote, that freedom of expression is not just a good idea in our democratic republic, but the bedrock of it.

Town Hall Meetings. This type of discourse format originally meant a place for politicians, usually representatives of the population in a city, county, or district, to meet with their constituents (the people they represent) for questions and answers, often starting the meeting with a short public address. In real practice, the governmental leaders do not have to be elected; during the development of its new strategic plan in 2019, officials from the University System of Georgia met with citizens in different parts of the state to garner input and feedback and answer questions about what the citizens would like the colleges and universities of Georgia to achieve. However, the term has been adopted by the business community to refer to “a meeting between managers and employees where developments in the business are discussed in a relaxed and informal atmosphere” (MacMillan Dictionary, 2017). These developments might involve personnel or leadership changes, restructuring, or mission/vision statement.

Town hall meetings are places for government representatives to engage with the public. They do not have to take place in “town halls,” but they are held in public spaces (libraries, auditoriums, churches, theaters) and they can take place electronically or even over the telephone. Votes are not taken at town halls; they are not like city or county council meetings. Because representatives are usually serving their constituents in a city in another part of the state or in Washington, D.C., town halls give the politicians a way to connect with voters in a local area where they may or may not actually live. Specific formats of town hall meetings can vary, but the expectation is one of civil discourse and that one person or group will not capture or co-opt the meeting for their own purposes.

Public Forums. This term is a broad name for events and spaces such as town hall meetings, debates, or discussions where freedom of speech is protected and active for the exchange of ideas. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School (n.d.) explains that in Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 (1983) the Supreme Court “divided public forums into three types: traditional public forums, designated forums, and nonpublic forums.” You can read about the distinctions between these three at this site. First Amendment protections are the background of these designations, so that the citizenry can have ample opportunity to use their freedom of expression to engage others about important matters.

Panels and Symposia. These two types of formats are similar. Panels are groups of “experts,” perhaps three to seven, who discuss a topic with the help of a moderator in front of an audience. Questions may or may not be taken from an audience. Panelists may make an opening statement. but the bulk of the panelists’ time is in answering prepared questions from the moderator, and each panelists’ time is limited. In some cases, the panelists might be responding to another central presentation. Roundtable is another version of a panel, the difference being the order of panelists goes “around the table.”

In a symposium, the experts each give prepared, separate speeches of some length on a different subtopic or aspect of a larger topic. The larger topic might be “cancer treatments,” the symposium members are all physicians, and each speaks on a different type of aspect of cancer treatment. At the end of the symposium, questions from the audience are addressed. In most public symposia, the speakers are well known experts or scholars whose reputations would attract an audience of either their peers or interested observers.

This section was added to the textbook in 2020 in hope that students will grow to appreciate rhetoric that is structured to improve the chances that everyone gets a chance to speak; that is motivated by respect for others with whom one disagrees rather than a desire to make points with zingers and insults; and that is mindful of audience needs for substantive material.