Lesson Report:
**Title:** Regulating Propaganda, Free Speech, and Policy Memo Design
This session connected the course’s philosophical content on propaganda and disinformation with the practical structure of the policy memo assignment. The instructor guided students from brainstorming possible solutions to misinformation, into a discussion of free speech and democratic limits, and then into close analysis of two real policy memos to model memo structure, tone, and comparative reasoning for students’ own written work.
—
## Attendance
– **Absences mentioned:** None explicitly mentioned in the transcript
– **Number of students mentioned absent:** 0
– **Note:** No formal roll call or attendance check appears in the transcript, so only explicitly mentioned absences can be tracked.
—
## Topics Covered
### 1. Opening Framing: Course goals, policy memo relevance, and the “solutions” problem
– The instructor opened by situating the lesson within two larger course goals:
– helping students understand the **policy memo style** they will need for upcoming written work,
– and addressing the final major **philosophical argument** needed to complete the course content.
– The instructor framed the day around a large guiding question tied directly to the midterm memo assignment:
– if propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation are serious problems, **what can actually be done to solve them?**
– Students were reminded that their memo will require them to **identify a propagandistic threat** and **pitch a potential solution**.
– To begin, the instructor asked students to reflect independently and then submit short written responses in the chat on possible ways to combat disinformation and propaganda in communities and democracies.
—
### 2. Whole-class brainstorm: Initial anti-disinformation solutions
– Students submitted ideas simultaneously into the chat at the instructor’s designated time.
– The instructor noted that many student responses converged on **education-oriented solutions**, especially:
– better general education,
– fact-checking skills,
– media literacy,
– transparency,
– OSINT/open-source verification approaches,
– institutional responses such as centers devoted to combating misinformation.
#### Student contributions noted during this segment
– **Zamira Sangmamadova** and **Ofarid Azimshoev** were specifically highlighted for proposing **media literacy** as a solution. The instructor endorsed this strongly as one of his preferred approaches.
– **Uncertain student (possibly Ivan Suslov; transcript rendered as “Yvonne/Ivan”)** proposed:
– increasing transparency in government,
– laws protecting people’s data,
– and developing centers for combating misinformation.
The instructor used this contribution to ask what such centers would actually *do* in practice: fact-checking, reporting, intervention, etc.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** proposed education-focused responses, especially **teaching people how to recognize propaganda**, and also raised the idea that governments should **punish deliberate disinformation**.
– **Musaev Timur** suggested stronger **control over media or algorithms** so false information would not be published or spread widely.
– **Harzu Natalia** asked whether all of the brainstormed ideas should be used in the midterm memo. The instructor clarified that students should **not attempt to include every idea** in a four-page memo and would need to **condense and streamline** their proposal.
#### Key instructional point
– The brainstorm served as a launch pad into the broader issue that **identifying disinformation as a problem is much easier than designing a politically and philosophically defensible solution**.
—
### 3. From intuitive regulation to democratic objections: Can governments punish disinformation?
– The instructor focused on the proposals from **Timur** and **Khadija**, since they reflected a common intuitive policy reaction:
– if the problem is people spreading lies, then a natural solution is to **make it illegal** and **punish** those who spread disinformation.
– Students were then asked to generate the argument **against** such laws.
#### Student contributions and discussion
– **Mar Lar Seinn** responded that the issue is not simple because propaganda is **not always outright falsehood**; it can involve truth or selective truth, making legal enforcement difficult. Seinn argued that instead of relying only on law, a more durable solution is **teaching people how to think rather than what to think**, emphasizing long-term critical reasoning.
– The instructor used this to highlight two initial problems:
1. **Definition problem**: who decides what counts as disinformation?
2. **Evidence problem**: how can authorities prove legally that a person is lying?
#### Transition to political theory
– The instructor then pushed the class to step back to a more philosophical level:
– if democracies are supposed to protect **free speech**, how can they justify punishing speech, even if it is harmful or false?
—
### 4. Freedom of speech as a democratic principle
– The class then moved into a discussion of what **freedom of speech** means in democratic theory.
#### Student contributions
– **Furmoly Floran** stated the central objection directly: punishing disinformation threatens **freedom of expression**.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** defined freedom of speech as the right of individuals to express opinions and ideas **without fear of the government** or other forms of punishment.
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** added that freedom of speech means the right to express opinions **without censorship or punishment**.
– **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna** contributed the idea of **balancing** a person’s right to express themselves with the **safety and rights of others**.
– **Uncertain student (possibly Ivan Suslov; transcript rendered as “Yvonne/Ivan”)** argued that when governments begin “policing the truth,” especially in conditions of low public trust, this can become a form of **usurpation of power**.
– **Harzu Natalia** briefly introduced an example from contemporary U.S. politics involving Donald Trump’s rhetoric, which the instructor set aside as something that could be addressed later.
#### Instructor explanation
– The instructor emphasized a “negative” understanding of rights:
– freedom of speech is not just the ability to speak,
– it is also **protection from government punishment** for speaking.
– He explained that, from the free-speech perspective, laws against misinformation risk allowing governments to criminalize not just falsehoods, but eventually **undesired political opinions**.
#### Key vocabulary introduced
– **Slippery slope**: once governments gain the power to punish certain speech, that power may expand gradually and end in **authoritarianism**.
– The instructor explicitly linked this argument to **democratic theory** and to students’ prior political theory background.
—
### 5. Limits of speech: harm, offense, reputation, and violence
– After laying out the free-speech absolutist position, the instructor returned to comments from students who had already hinted at its limitations.
#### Student contributions
– **Ainullah Amery** (transcribed in places as “Ainua/Ainullah”) argued that people should speak freely **unless their speech hurts others**.
– **Nilufar Silmonova** had earlier made a similar point about balancing speech with others’ safety and rights.
– Asked what “hurt” means in this context, **Ainullah Amery** gave a simple example: **insulting others** with bad words.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** added that harmful speech can escalate because **words can lead to violence**.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** noted another form of harm: speech can spread misinformation about a person and **damage their reputation**.
– When the instructor introduced the term **slander**, **Khadija** defined it as spreading false statements about a person that harm their reputation.
– Khadija then expanded the discussion by connecting harmful speech to current discourse around the Middle East:
– speech targeting particular groups or religions can become **hate speech**,
– such rhetoric spreads rapidly on social media,
– and public engagement with such content can intensify hostility and violence.
#### Instructor synthesis
– The instructor organized these examples into several kinds of harm speech can cause:
1. **Offense** and degradation,
2. **Reputational harm** that may affect jobs, livelihood, and standing in society,
3. **Loss of dignity**,
4. **Violence**, especially through vilification of groups.
– This became the bridge into the idea that there are serious arguments **against free speech absolutism**, even before reading Miller.
—
### 6. Reading framework: Boyd Miller, the free market of ideas, and epistemic responsibility
– The instructor introduced the assigned reading by **Boyd Miller**, framing it as a different way of arguing for limits on speech.
– Rather than relying only on **moral arguments about harm**, Miller argues from an **epistemic** standpoint, meaning a standpoint concerned with **truth, falsehood, and knowledge**.
#### The free market analogy
– To unpack Miller, the instructor first reviewed the idea of the **free market of ideas**, often associated with Mill and liberal political theory.
– He asked students to define a **free market** in economic terms.
#### Student contributions
– **Mar Lar Seinn** said that in a free market one can **set prices independently**.
– **Harzu Natalia** called it a **neoliberal concept**, and later added that in such a system **everyone can participate**.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** and **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna** emphasized **supply and demand** as the mechanism that determines prices.
– **Furmoly Floran** added that free markets involve **minimal or limited government control**.
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** summarized the idea as people being able to **buy and sell freely**.
#### Instructor explanation of analogy
– Using a coffee example, the instructor illustrated how free markets supposedly allow the “best” options to win out through voluntary choice.
– He then mapped this economic logic onto democratic discourse:
– in the **free market of ideas**, citizens are exposed to many beliefs,
– they compare them,
– and supposedly the best ideas “rise to the top” naturally.
– The instructor then presented Miller’s challenge:
– this model is **obsolete** and even **harmful** when misinformation circulates widely,
– because repeated exposure to falsehoods erodes confidence in truth even when people know claims are false.
– Miller’s core idea, as explained in class:
– people have an **epistemic responsibility** to avoid disinformation,
– and societies may be justified in supporting laws that reduce the spread of lies,
– not simply because lies are morally offensive, but because they **damage the public’s capacity to know truth**, which democracy depends on.
#### Key conceptual emphasis
– Democracy, in Miller’s view, is weakened not only by censorship, but also by uncontrolled exposure to “bullshit,” disinformation, and repeated falsehoods that poison collective truth-seeking.
—
### 7. Transition from theory to practice: Why policy memos matter
– The instructor then pivoted from philosophical debate to **policy** and memo-writing.
– He explained that Miller’s argument ultimately implies a practical question:
– if we think lies should be reduced, **how do laws or policies actually come into being?**
– His answer: through documents such as **policy memos**, which is why memo structure matters for the class assignment.
– This transition explicitly connected course theory to the students’ own writing task.
—
### 8. Memo analysis #1: CIA memo to George W. Bush, August 2001
– The instructor shared a PDF of a famous memo and asked students to identify:
1. **When it was written**
2. **What it was about**
#### Student contributions
– **Yousufzai Khadija** identified the date as **August 2001**.
– The class collectively recognized the memo as a warning that **Osama bin Laden / Al Qaeda** intended to strike the United States.
#### Threat-analysis exercise
– Students were then asked to identify:
– the **actor**,
– the **threat/tactic**,
– and the **target**.
##### Student contributions
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** correctly identified:
– **Actor:** Osama bin Laden / Al Qaeda
– **Tactic:** hijacking / terrorist attack
– **Target:** the United States, especially sites/buildings in New York
– **Kanykei Kendirbaeva** also identified the U.S. and bin Laden within the memo’s threat structure.
#### Historical context emphasized
– The instructor pointed out that the memo was written only two months before **9/11**, making it one of the most famous policy memos in modern history because it is widely viewed as having anticipated the attack.
—
### 9. Memo writing lesson: Neutral tone, sparse adjectives, and non-emotional language
– Students were instructed to reread the first page of the CIA memo and identify **adjectives**.
– The class generated examples such as:
– clandestine,
– foreign,
– Islamic,
– suspicious,
– recent,
– serious,
– Muslim American,
– terrorist,
– and similar descriptive terms.
– The instructor’s teaching point was that the memo contains **very few adjectives**, and those present are largely factual or temporal rather than moral.
#### Key memo-writing principles extracted
– A strong memo should:
– avoid **emotional language**,
– avoid moralizing labels such as **evil**, **good**, **bad**, **wrong**,
– remain as **neutral, clinical, and fact-based** as possible.
– The instructor explained that he chose this memo partly because it is dramatic and engaging, making it easier to use as a first model before moving to drier policy writing.
—
### 10. Memo analysis #2: Afghan embassy memo on lobbying in Washington
– The instructor then introduced a second memo, from the **Afghan embassy in the U.S.** to the **Afghan government/Minister of Finance** in 2009.
– He explained that students’ memo assignment requires them to offer a **new solution**, but that “new” in policy writing often means **adapting an already existing solution from another context**, not inventing an unprecedented idea.
#### Timed reading task
– Students were given a few minutes to scan the document and identify:
– the **problem** being raised,
– and the **solution** being proposed.
#### Student contributions
– **Uncertain student (“Malaysia” in transcript; not confidently matchable to roster)** identified the core issue as Afghanistan lagging behind other countries and quoted the memo’s proposed solution about allocating annual funding for a professional lobbying firm.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** summarized the problem clearly:
– Afghanistan was not doing enough lobbying in the U.S.,
– while countries like Pakistan and India were spending heavily to influence U.S. policy.
She identified the solution as increased spending on lobbying and public relations to advance Afghan interests.
– **Ezgo Helen** restated that Afghanistan was behind neighboring states such as Pakistan, India, and China in lobbying efforts in Washington.
– **Harzu Natalia** asked for clarification about **whose goals** the memo reflected, prompting the instructor to explain that this was written by **Afghan diplomats in the U.S.** to their own government.
#### Discussion of lobbying
– The instructor asked the class to define **lobbying**.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** explained it as efforts by diplomats or political actors to **persuade leaders and decision-makers** to support a country’s or group’s interests, often in order to obtain more favorable attention, support, or funding.
– The instructor refined this explanation by describing lobbying firms as organizations, often staffed by former officials or insiders, that know **how to persuade decision-makers** and shape outcomes.
#### Historical and political context
– The instructor asked why Afghanistan in 2009 would need to influence Washington so strongly.
– He explained that because the U.S. was deeply involved in Afghanistan at the time, decisions made in Washington directly affected:
– governance in Kabul,
– funding flows,
– military deployment,
– and political structure.
– **Harzu Natalia** also asked whether lobbying is legal and how it relates to democracy. The instructor said yes, it is legal and regulated, and noted that lobbying is often cited as one of the major tensions within American democracy.
—
### 11. Comparative logic in policy writing: Why Pakistan and India, not just any country?
– The instructor pushed students to ask why the Afghan memo compared itself specifically with **Pakistan** and **India**, rather than countries like Poland, Israel, or Uzbekistan.
– The class discussion emphasized that good policy comparisons require genuinely **comparable cases**.
#### Student contributions
– Students suggested reasons such as:
– **immediate neighbors**,
– **competitors/rivals**,
– and countries with overlapping regional relevance.
– The instructor elaborated that Pakistan and India were chosen because they are more appropriate comparison points:
– geographically proximate,
– more relevant to Afghan strategic interests,
– and in Pakistan’s case, often in direct tension with Afghan interests.
#### Assignment-related takeaway
– Students were told that in their own policy memos, they will need to choose comparisons that are **actually defensible and contextually appropriate**.
—
### 12. Closing instructions and next steps
– The instructor closed by saying that Wednesday’s class would go further into:
– the Afghan memo,
– Miller’s argument,
– and students’ own memo development.
– Students were assigned to:
– **read Miller** on eCourse (about 20 pages),
– reread the Afghanistan memo more carefully,
– and be prepared to discuss what Afghanistan wants and why it makes the comparisons it does.
– The instructor also reminded students that the **deadline mentioned in class was April 1**, about nine days away.
—
### 13. After-class individual consultation: Kamilla’s memo topic
– After the formal class ended, **Kamilla Ismailova** stayed to ask whether she could use as her memo topic the Russian disinformation narrative claiming that **Ukraine was creating biological weapons with U.S. assistance**.
– She explained that:
– she had located examples beginning in **February 2022**,
– found repeated instances in February and March,
– and wanted to combine these examples into a focused case study.
– The instructor approved the topic, saying it was:
– **specific enough**,
– **ongoing enough**,
– and likely to work well for the assignment if she could document repeated instances of the disinformation claim.
—
## Student Tracker
– **Ainullah Amery** — Argued that speech should remain free unless it harms others, helping launch the discussion of harmful speech.
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** — Defined freedom of speech as expression without censorship or punishment and contributed to the free-market discussion.
– **Azimshoev Ofarid Asalbekovich** — Proposed media literacy as a key anti-disinformation solution during the opening brainstorm.
– **Ezgo Helen** — Summarized the Afghanistan memo’s core problem as Afghanistan lagging behind other countries in lobbying influence.
– **Furmoly Floran** — Raised freedom of expression as an objection to punishing disinformation and contributed to the definition of free markets as having limited government control.
– **Harzu Natalia** — Asked several clarifying questions about memo scope, U.S. politics, lobbying legality, and the Afghanistan memo’s perspective; also contributed to the free-market discussion.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** — Identified the actor/tactic/target in the CIA memo and clearly summarized the problem and solution in the Afghanistan memo.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** — Defined freedom of speech, noted reputational harm from speech, and after class received approval for a memo topic on Russian disinformation about Ukrainian bioweapons.
– **Kanykei Kendirbaeva** — Contributed during memo analysis and the discussion of choosing appropriate comparison cases.
– **Mar Lar Seinn** — Argued that legal regulation of propaganda is complicated because propaganda is not always simply false and emphasized critical thinking as a long-term solution.
– **Musaev Timur Arsenovich** — Proposed media/algorithmic controls to reduce false information, which helped launch the regulation-versus-free-speech debate.
– **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna** — Emphasized balancing speech with others’ safety and rights and helped define the free market in supply-and-demand terms.
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna** — Proposed media literacy as an anti-disinformation measure during the opening solution brainstorm.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** — Contributed extensively across the session on education, punishment of disinformation, slander, hate speech, free-market concepts, memo dating, and the definition of lobbying.
– **Uncertain student (possibly Ivan Suslov; transcript rendered as “Yvonne/Ivan”)** — Suggested transparency, data protection, and anti-misinformation centers, and later argued that government truth-policing can become usurpation of power.
– **Uncertain student (“Malaysia” in transcript; could not be confidently matched to roster)** — Quoted the Afghanistan memo’s problem/solution language during the scan activity.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Urgency
– **Read Boyd Miller** on eCourse before Wednesday; instructor described it as approximately 20 pages.
– **Reread the Afghanistan lobbying memo** and be ready to explain:
– what Afghanistan wants,
– what problem it identifies,
– and why it compares itself specifically to Pakistan and India.
– **Track the stated deadline: April 1** for the major written submission referenced at the end of class.
### Medium Urgency
– **Narrow memo ideas** rather than trying to include every possible anti-disinformation solution in one short paper.
– **Use neutral, non-emotional language** in memo drafts; avoid moralizing adjectives.
– **Choose truly comparable cases** when adapting outside solutions for the policy memo.
### Student-Specific Follow-up
– **Kamilla Ismailova** may proceed with the topic on Russian claims about Ukrainian/U.S.-linked biological weapons, provided she documents repeated and ongoing instances of the narrative.
– Students developing memo topics should aim for cases that are:
– sufficiently specific,
– documentable,
– and still relevant/ongoing where possible.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Read Boyd Miller on free speech, truth, and democracy
You should read Boyd Miller’s assigned text to prepare for our continued discussion of free speech absolutism, misinformation, propaganda, and the epistemic argument for restricting disinformation. This reading will help you connect the philosophical debate from class to the broader course question of how democracies should respond to propagandistic threats.
Instructions:
1. Go to eCourse and locate the Boyd Miller reading that was referenced in class.
2. Read the full text carefully. The professor noted that the reading is “about 20 pages,” so set aside enough uninterrupted time to complete it attentively.
3. As you read, focus especially on Miller’s central claim that arguments about restricting harmful speech do not have to rely only on moral claims about harm, offense, or dignity.
4. Identify Miller’s epistemic argument. In other words, make sure you understand how he connects truth, falsehood, and democracy.
5. Take notes on the following ideas that were emphasized in class:
1. free speech absolutism
2. the “free market of ideas”
3. why Miller thinks this older view is no longer sufficient
4. the claim that repeated exposure to falsehoods weakens people’s confidence in truth
5. the idea of an “epistemic responsibility” to avoid disinformation
6. why Miller believes societies may need laws that reduce the spread of lies
6. Write down at least a few key passages or arguments that you think are important, confusing, or debatable.
7. Come to class on Wednesday prepared to discuss Miller’s argument in relation to the course theme of solutions to propaganda and misinformation.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Re-read the Afghanistan lobbying memo and prepare to discuss its policy logic
You should read the Afghanistan memo more closely so that you can better understand how a policy memo identifies a problem, proposes a solution, and uses comparison strategically. This will help you as you work toward your own memo-based assignment in which you will need to propose a solution to a propagandistic threat.
Instructions:
1. Go back to the Afghanistan memo that was shared in class.
2. Read the memo again more carefully than you did during the in-class scanning exercise.
3. Identify the central problem the memo is describing. Based on class discussion, pay attention to Afghanistan’s concern that it lacks sufficient influence in Washington compared to other countries.
4. Identify the solution the memo proposes. Make sure you understand that the memo is advocating increased lobbying capacity and funding as a way to advance Afghanistan’s interests in the United States.
5. Pay special attention to what Afghanistan is actually asking for in practical terms.
6. Note which countries the memo compares Afghanistan to, especially Pakistan and India.
7. Think about why those comparisons were chosen instead of comparisons to unrelated countries. Use the point made in class: good policy comparisons must be made between cases that are actually comparable.
8. As you read, track how the memo builds its argument:
1. what problem it identifies
2. why that problem matters
3. what solution it recommends
4. how comparison is used to strengthen the recommendation
9. Also remember the earlier memo example from class and keep in mind the stylistic lesson about memo writing: effective memos are written in neutral, factual, non-emotional language.
10. Come to class on Wednesday ready to explain both:
1. what Afghanistan wants in the memo
2. what comparisons the memo makes and why those comparisons matter