Bill Hicks's Informal Letter

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

He is not simply a hypocrite who wished to complain about all that is being done wrong; he is speaking as one who truly has a care and concern for the church and is involved in it. Furthermore, King portrays his use of ethos when he expresses, “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom.” The majority of Americans will respond greatly to this statement because of how proud they are of America’s freedom, and it will appeal to their pride. Altogether, King builds trust in his readers and continually convinces them of his worthiness to speak on behalf of this issue because of the ethos he intermingled throughout his letter.

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.

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through

Early on, his polite attitude and Christian knowledge develop the necessary ethos to turn the clergymen into receptive readers. He then uses logos to support his central claim that demonstration and civil disobedience is rightfully justified. Appealing to pathos, he evokes emotion and pinpoints the clergymen’s hypocrisy, cohesively creating a complete argument that inspires support for the civil rights

Martin Luther King started his letter right off placing himself on an equal playing field as the white clergy that was criticizing him when he wrote his salutation “My dear Fellow Clergymen” (King, 2017, p. 1). From those beginning words it is evident that Mr. King was using Rhetorical appeal of ethos, pathos and logos to establish ethical

In the beginning of this article, Rosenbaum relies on the appeal of emotion, pathos, to persuade his audience to agree with his claim. He tries to achieve this by telling a story of a church group picketing the funeral of a gay marine. He states, “The Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read ‘God Hates Fags’ ” (Rosenbaum). This event caused an uproar and disrupted the peace of a marines’ funeral. Many people began to question the limits of free speech because of this. How can people use hateful speech such as

King wrote a letter in 1963 while he was imprisoned in Birmingham jail to eight white religious leaders in response to a “public statement of concern and cautious issued.” The letter was for a request to put a stop on the political action march in Birmingham that King was in charge of. This letter has turned into one of the best works of argument in U.S. history. Due to the logic of this letter being unsavory reputation and usefulness is due to its expressive use of pathos, logos and ethos. King’s use of pathos in his letter not only supports the statement he is making as well as making his argument morally irrefutable.

INTRODUCTION. In my English class at Capital High School, we recently read the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and we discussed whether freedom is really free. In my opinion, I think that freedom is free, but it has its limitations. People always complain about not being able to do the things they want to do but it’s all about contentment. It’s all in the mind and in the way we see things. We, the citizens of the United States, are trained to practice our rights such as the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion which I believe is very significant to a person, but nowadays, people tend to abuse it and when someone tries to correct them, the tendency is that they would get mad and would answer back saying that they’re free to say whatever they want to say. I personally think that this shouldn’t be our mindset towards freedom. Freedom is free, but we should not abuse it nor take advantage of it in the wrong way. Freedom is important because it is a way of expressing yourself and a way for people to get to know you as a person that’s why this is significant to me. My main goal in this letter is to express and tell you my opinion about the abuse of our freedom by connecting two articles and the book, Fahrenheit 451.

As American people, we know that we are entitled to certain rights according to the constitution; one of which is freedom of speech. In Civility and Its Discontents, Leslie Epstein explores the limits and contradictions of this much cherished right when considering whether he would expel a student who wrote racial slurs in the dorm rooms of a University if it was up to him. He discusses this situation and topics that stem from it in an analytical yet somewhat emotionally involved tone and makes the reader reflect on the wide range of information presented about the issues of political correctness, freedom of speech, expulsion, and racism.

“The Christian Coalition’s letter exemplifies a contradiction that recurs throughout the modern history of censorship: attempts to restrict or regulate sexually explicit images produce their own theater of sexual acts and imagery, their own fantasies of erotic exchange and transgression” (pg. 5, Meyer). According to Meyer the idea of have and sharing the “homosexual image” is a way of art, however people like Pat Robertson who highly disagree with such acts, due to their personal beliefs or usually the big reason, religion; condemns this act and not only shares his beliefs with others by writing a letter, he also lies about what he has seen in order to “regulate and suppress actual works of art.” Robertson’s way of trying to shut out or stop

“At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.

“Good citizens know they’re accountable for their actions (someone has said, “My right to swing my arm ends when my fist hits your nose.”)  There are those, however, who tend to forget that they also are held accountable for their words.  That’s how laws against libel and slander are sustained.” (Zonder)  There is no way to determine what will be offensive to one person, but not the next.  “For example, many African- Americans view the American classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as and example of hate speech.” (Wolfson)  Words can be very powerful.  If it is offensive, don’t read it or listen to it.  It is as simple as that.