Analysis Of John Sullivan's Political Tolerance

One of the clauses in the Preamble states that one of the responsibilities of the United States government is to “Insure domestic Tranquility”, or in other words Peace. Achieving peace is naturally a difficult task since people are bound to have conflicting viewpoints, ideologies and prejudices, but it’s not impossible if a culture of tolerance is promoted. Nonetheless not everyone is tolerant when it comes to sensational topics such as race that has made the headline a few months ago in Baltimore, Maryland with the shooting of Freddie Gray and in other states such as the shooting of nine african americans in their bible study session.

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.

In the Texas v. Majority court case, the theme is tolerance is the driving force of the short read. The Supreme Court argued that we must be tolerant of Gregory Lee Johnson for his desecration of the American Flag as it is freedom of speech and would be unconstitutional to imprison him for exercising his first amendment freedoms. Another argument states that Johnson should have been tolerant of the United

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime

Lippman compares multiple things we tolerate by saying, “We miss the whole point when we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of our political opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door, as we put up with the blasts from our neighbor’s radio,” (lines 42-44)Through this analogy Lippman stresses that we must not have a quiet voice while voicing our opinion on important topics, however we must still respect the opinion of our opponents. The comparison of tolerating small annoyances to an opposing opinion on meaningful subjects shows the vast difference between the two

In this portion of his article Buckley makes a large extrapolation from Americans behaving in a reserved manner on a small-scale, the movie theater, to the more substantial political scale when he mentions the rights. Despite the comparable nature of this anecdote it is unfounded to make such a gargantuan leap without a more a concrete foundation, with the lack of evidence provided this is no more than guesswork. It is problematic to make this claim, because it is inconceivable to anticipate how individuals would behave in a situation with more at stake. It may be that Americans would simply endure even if their rights were on the chopping block, but it is impossible to accurately predict what their response would

"If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perpetuation." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1938 (Isaacs 66)

America’s Constitution was built upon the fundamentals that all citizens are created equal and tolerate one another. However in the recent years this tolerance for others beliefs has diminished, sprouting censorship, and sensitivity to others with different beliefs. Michael Bloomberg former mayor of New York City (NYC) and Harvard graduate and philtronphist then Wendy Kaminer, an attorney, author and social critic argues that intolerance needs to stop. Additionally, they believe that citizens should become more accepting of others and willing to converse despite their differences. Bloomberg wrote in his commencement speech at Harvard’s graduation for the class of 2014 that, citizens of the U.S. should protect their freedom of speech and also to tolerate the beliefs of others. Likewise Kaminer argued in her essay A Civic Duty to Annoy published in “The Atlantic” that citizens have a responsibility to enter thought provoking discussions on important issues to build tolerance for different beliefs. Similarly both authors believe that Americans have to tolerate others beliefs to respect the First Amendment. Although, they present similar ideas Bloomberg’s is better at persuading citizens to tolerate others’ beliefs than Kaminer’s essay.

In countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

Derek Bok argues that American dedication to democracy is embodied in the Frist Amendment and that the freedoms granted in this Amendment are the building blocks of dialogues that contribute to cohesive communities born out of differences. The problem, however, according to Bok, is the difficulty of balancing the protection of these freedoms on campuses and universities where reasoned expression of diverse ideas is encouraged. Bok offers the suggestion that rather than attempt to stifle expression by imposing penalties for what might be considered offensive speech, “speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their action on others” (69). While this suggestion might imply a reasoned and

Acceptance, a word with so much meaning yet so little impact. The world struggles to accept one’s choice of words to their race. In the text “American Flag Stands for Tolerance” by Ronald J Allen, “Texas vs. Johnson”, and “My so Called Enemy” by William J Brennan demonstrate how people should be accepted and along with their opinions. We as human beings must be willing to accept people or opinions that are different from ourselves.

Tolerance in society is seen as the ability to coexist peacefully with everyone. A tolerant society promotes individuality and happiness without persecution. Society is seen as intolerant when people are not accepted into a society unless the change who they are. Tolerance in American society is debatable. April Kelly-Woessner argues in her article, ‘How Marcuse Made Today’s Students Less Tolerant Than Their Parents’, that young Americans broke the trend of each generation being more tolerant than the generation before. Woessner claims that society is more intolerant of those intolerant of Americans. Former President George W. Bush gave a speech after the terrorist attack on the world trade center on September 11, 2001 that exemplifies an intolerant

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.