I am writting my thesis on can government regulate hate speech on social media, without violating the first amendment?
my first chapter is on law and my second chapter is on political science. i need a third chapter on Common Ground & Integration ChapterCommon Ground & Integration ChapterCommon Ground & Integration ChapterCommon Ground & Integration. following the instructions bellow.
1. You need a chapter outline with topic headings and subheadings. You need to follow those outline headings throughout the chapter.
2. You need a chapter Introduction labeled as such. The Introduction should address the need for interdisciplinary analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of your research problem. Explain the integration process.
3. Explain how you found 2 conflicting insights from each of your 2 disciplines. What are the 2 conflicting insights from each discipline?
4. Using the same 2 pairs of insights, try to find common ground between the insights in each pair. What is the common ground that you find between each pair of insights?
5. Explain how you integrated each pair of insights to form a new interdisciplinary insight that helps to provide a more comprehensive understanding of your issue. What suggestions do you have for possible resolutions to your research problem? What suggestions do you have for further research on your topic that could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of your research problem? 6. Chapter Conclusion
To find conflicting insights and then common ground between them, look back at the Annotated Literature Search from last semester. Find 2 insights (how the author of a source looks at a particular issue). E.g., among your law sources, an author says that the 1st Amendment is so broad that there is no leeway to regulate hate speech. Then find among your political science sources a contrary insight regarding the topic. E.g., a political scientist says in an article that government or politicians have a duty to protect public order and safety, and since all of the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable limitations, restrictions on hate speech consistent with the 1st Amendment are desirable and possible. There’s 1 pair of conflicting disciplinary insights. Then do it again, finding one more pair of conflicting insights from your law and political science sources. Then try to find common ground between each pair of conflicting insights. Then try to integrate, “blend together” the common ground and arrive at a new disciplinary insight.
Following the rubric:
Outline, Subheadings, Introduction, Explanation of Integration Process, Explanation of Conflicts, Explanation of Common Graund, Explanation of Integration, Use of Information, Chapter Conclusion, Grammar, Mechanics, Citation Forms, Bibliography/Footnotes.