8801|1

Answer one question.

1 Is change always good?

2 ‘Education is more about the process and less about the result.’ How true is this of your
society?

3 ‘Fashion has no practical purpose.’ Do you agree?

4 ‘Entertainment, not truth, is the priority of the media today.’ Comment.

5 ‘Recent innovations in transport are transforming our way of life.’ How far is this true of your
society today?

6 Do the Arts have the power to bridge the social divide?

7 Should a government provide free healthcare for its people?

8 ‘National borders are no longer relevant in today’s world.’ What is your view?

9 ‘Young people in your society today do not have strong beliefs that they are willing to fight
for.’ Discuss.

10 Should the public care about a politician’s private life?

11 Can we eliminate violence with education?

12 To what extent is loyalty valued in today’s world?

END OF PAPER

2
 8801|2
Passage 1. AC Grayling argues for free speech.

1 Liberty is not divisible; a society's members do not have it if they have only some of it in some
spheres. That is why incremental reductions of aspects of civil liberty in society are a danger. The
too-true cliché says that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, which is why we must resist, and
resist vigorously, the early stages of assaults on liberty especially those made by well-meaning
politicians who earnestly, eagerly, sincerely desire to protect us from bad people and from 5
ourselves, for those are the most insidious.

2 The foundation of liberty is free speech. Without free speech one cannot claim other liberties, or
defend them when they are attacked. Without free speech one cannot have a democratic process
which requires the statement and testing of policy proposals and party platforms. Without free
speech one cannot have a due process at law in which one can defend oneself, accuse, collect and 10
examine evidence, make a case or refute one. Without free speech there cannot be genuine
education and research, enquiry, debate, exchange of information, challenges to falsehood,
questioning of governments, proposal and examination of opinion. Without free speech there
cannot be a free press, which although it always abuses its freedoms in the hunt for profit, is
necessary as a watchdog in a free society. Without free speech there cannot be a flourishing 15
literature and theatre. Without free speech there are limits to innovation and experiment in any walk
of life. In short, without free speech there is no real freedom.

3 It is also true that there have to be limits to free speech at times. But it is absolutely vital that this be
understood scrupulously and carefully. The standard example of a case where limits to free speech
are justified is falsely crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema. In the example, what is wrong with doing 20
this is irresponsibly causing harm. Allowed too wide a reading, the "fire!" example can justify all
manner of unjustifiable restrictions on free speech, as have occurred in our country in recent years
(“glorification of terrorism”, “incitement to religious hatred”). Restrictions on free speech have to be
extremely narrow, extremely specific, case by case, one-off and on the best justification. But,
generally, the remedy for bad free speech is better free speech in response. 25

4 So vital is free speech to the health and liberty of a society that the plea of “feeling offended” by
what people say about one's choices and beliefs is not and can never be a reason for limiting free
speech. Taking offence, followed by infantile demonstrations and infinitely more offensive threats of
mayhem and death, has become typical of religious extremists. This is unacceptable anywhere, but
in western liberal democracies especially so, for it strikes at the heart of what makes them both 30
liberal and democracies.

5 Censorship by coercion and special pleading is as big a threat to liberty in the west today as the
actions by our own governments in diminishing our freedoms in the supposed interests of security.
All who choose to live in a western liberal democracy should be told that discrimination based on
age, ethnicity, disability, and sexuality - the things they cannot choose but to have or be - will not be 35
tolerated; but their opinions and beliefs, the matters over which they have choice, are open season
for cartoonists, satirists, and all those who disagree: and they must like it or lump it, or if they are
too immature or insecure, or both, to do neither, they are free to leave.

6 With the prohibition of the “glorification” of such inglorious things, such as terrorism, and
government action taken against criticism of religion, the assault on free speech is well underway: it 40
is time its defense is well under way too.
Adapted from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/13/freedomofspeech
 2

Passage 2. Peter Singer argues against free speech.

1 About a week before the United States presidential election, someone posted on Twitter that Hillary
Clinton was at the centre of a paedophilia ring. The rumour spread through social media, and a talk
show host, Alex Jones, repeatedly stated that she was involved in child abuse and that her
campaign chairman, John Podesta, took part in satanic rituals. In a YouTube video watched more
than 400,000 times (since removed), Jones referred to “all the children Hillary Clinton has 5
personally murdered and chopped up and raped”.

2 Emails released by WikiLeaks showed that Podesta sometimes dined at a Washington pizza
restaurant called Comet Ping Pong. This information was frequently retweeted by bots –
programmes designed to spread certain types of messages – contributing to the impression that
many people were taking the allegations that the pizzeria housed the paedophilia ring seriously. 10
The story, amazingly, was also retweeted by General Michael Flynn, who is soon to be Donald
Trump’s national security adviser. Even after Trump’s election – and despite debunking by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – the story continued to spread. Comet Ping Pong was
harassed by constant, abusive, and often threatening phone calls. But the manager was told these
rumours were speech protected under the law. 15

3 Fake news – (active misinformation) that is packaged to look as if it comes from a serious news site
– is a threat to democratic institutions. There have been less absurd examples, including a fake
report of a nuclear threat by Israel’s defence minister that misled his Pakistani counterpart into
retweeting the report and warning Israel that Pakistan, too, is a nuclear power. President Barack
Obama acknowledged the danger to democratic freedoms. Whether or not fake news cost Clinton 20
the presidency, it plainly could cause a candidate to lose an election and upset international
relations. It is also contrary to a fundamental premise on which democracy rests: that voters can
make informed choices between contending candidates.

4 The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press…” By 1919, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of those 25
words had led to the doctrine that Congress could prohibit speech only if it posed “a clear and
present danger” of serious harm. That position was further refined, with freedom of speech and
assembly described as functions essential to effective democracy. On that basis, for speech to
pose a clear and present danger that could justify prohibiting it, the harm the speech would cause
must be so imminent that it could preclude any opportunity to discuss fully what had been said. 30

5 Today, these narrowly defined prohibitions appear to be inadequate. It is difficult to have so much
confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning, especially if it is supposed to be applied
through the processes of popular government – which presumably requires that it influences
elections. Similarly, the belief that more speech, not enforced silence, is the remedy for falsehood
and fallacies looks naïve, especially if applied in an election campaign. 35

6 What, though, is the alternative? Clinton could sue Jones personally for defamation, but that would
be costly and time-consuming. Instead, the government could intervene with criminal charges. For
many centuries in the United Kingdom, defamation was a criminal offense, but it fell into disuse and
was abolished in 2010. Yet, recent examples of fake news suggest that this conclusion was
premature. To accuse a US presidential candidate of personally murdering children is not petty, and 40
current measures provide no adequate remedy. In the Internet age, is it time for the legal pendulum
to swing back?
Adapted from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fake-news-criminal-libel-by-peter-singer-2017-01

END OF INSERT
 3

Read the passage and then answer all the questions. Note that up to fifteen marks will be given for the
quality and accuracy of your use of English throughout this Paper.

NOTE: When a question asks for an answer IN YOUR OWN WORDS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE and you
select the appropriate material from the passage for your answer, you must still use your own words to
express it. Little credit can be given to answers which only copy words and phrases from the passage.

From Passage 1

1 From paragraph 1, why does the writer suggest that the assaults made on liberty by ‘well-meaning
politicians’ are the most ‘insidious’?

2 Explain what the writer means when he asserts that the behaviour of religious extremists ‘strikes
3 30).
at the heart’ of western liberal democracies (line

3 Using material from paragraphs 2 and 3 only (lines 7-25), summarise what the author has to say
about the reasons why we need free speech, and when restrictions on free speech can be justified.
Write your summary in no more than 120 words, not counting the opening words which are printed
below. Use your own words as far as possible.
We need free speech because ……………………………………...……………………………………

4 What is the purpose of the opening example in paragraph 1?

5 What does the word ‘amazingly’ (line 11) tell you about the author’s view of General Flynn?

6 Explain the irony in the line ‘But the manager was told these rumours were speech protected
under the law.’ (lines 14-15)

7 What is the purpose of placing ‘active misinformation’ (line 16) in brackets?

8 Explain why fake news is a ‘danger to democratic freedoms’ (line 20)? Use your own words as
far as possible.

9 In paragraph 4, according to the Supreme Court, when should free speech be prohibited? Use
your own words as far as possible.

10 Explain what the author means by ‘more speech, not enforced silence, is the remedy for falsehood
and fallacies’ (lines 34-35)?

11 What is the ‘alternative’ (line 36) that the author suggests in the final paragraph?

From both passages

12 AC Grayling argues for less regulation of free speech, while Peter Singer argues for more.

How far do you agree with the opinions expressed in these two passages? Support your answer
with examples drawn from your own experience and that of your society.