A Rhetorical Analysis Of The Indispensable Opposition By Walter Lippman

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

In Anthony Lewis’ Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, the author explores the history of the first amendment in the constitution, and goes through multiple examples of instances in American history where our true freedom of speech was questioned.

1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:

America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.

In American tradition, the value of the individual, and individual opinion, is held in high esteem. Free expression is the means by which consensus is reached and central authority is balanced. In this democracy,

Back in the year of 1791, when our grand country was at the tender age of fifteen, two gentlemen gathered together to form a written document that would protect their newly attained freedom. These written principles, later know as the Bill of Rights, were penned primarily by George Mason and James Madison. The Founding Fathers of the American public’s home country. It is interesting to note that not only were these two men the authors of Bill of Rights but were also successful in their own careers too. George Mason, a prospering planter in the state of Virginia and James Madison a graduate of the College of New Jersey, known as present day Princeton. Madison was a lawyer by trade, but was driven with a profound interest in ministry. They came together to compose one of the greatest treasures in the nation’s history: the Bill of Rights. In this written expository, this author will be discussing the first of the ten of these amendments: the amendment that guarantees Americans the freedom of Speech. The necessity of free speech and the important values it contains is a main foundation for this country, therefore, Rosenblatt 's argument for the freedom of “expression” is valid because it certifies our right to speak freely, form an opinion, and exercise the correct function of democracy while on American soil.

All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).

However, these ideas cannot be simply dismissed because they are central to the American perspective on the necessity of hate speech legislation. Waldron fails to address in an effective way why he is able to dismiss these central ideas. In doing so, he is practically admitting to the reader that his ideas are based outside of the framework of the reality of American free speech tradition. The strength of his argument suffers from the fact that his argument is not applicable to the reality of American society’s views on free speech.

Walter Lippmann exploits an declamatory grammatical use of simile, formal diction, and passionate tone to supply readers a prominent understanding of the matter of Freedom of Speech. To accentuate his very own opinion, Lippmann semblances ever day occurrences to how we as humans feel about freedom. He says, "[...] we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of our political opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door[...]" (42-44) By comparing the freedom of a political opponent to a howling baby he is describing how we listen to the political figures opinions even if we do disagree with them. Lipmann's strategy is effective because he is appeasing to the adult readers who understand the rambunctiousness of presidential campaigns. Lippmann also uses formal diction by using wide vocabulary to get his opinion across.

Allen, one can infer that a better society can be built once people’s beliefs and opinions are accepted by all. This article talks about the two opinions american citizens have on the burning of the American flag. While some believe it is acceptable because we are protected by the first Amendment, since it is a form of speech, others regard the action as a sign of disrespect and rebellion. Here the author believes that inhabitants should feel free to do whatever they believe in. For example, “Each individual is to have the freedom to develop by his or her own lights, and not by the command of officialdom.

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.

On this world today free speech has been a standout amongst the most battled after rights in the United Conditions of America. The right to speak freely was received on December 15, 1791. The right to speak freely is secured by the main correction in the Constitution of United States, which is the privilege to explain one’s suppositions and thoughts without dread of government countering or control, or societal endorse. Free discourse is imperative in the public arena since we are allowed to create as individuals and end up noticeably mindful of what is happening around us. The right to speak freely played an extremely vital part in how and our identity today and is the principle motivation behind why we

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.