David K. Shipler 's Freedom Of Speech : Mightier Than The Sword

In “A First Amendment Junkie,” Susan Jacoby argues that the First Amendment cannot be selectively applied. Susan Jacoby is an established columnist from The New York Times, and has experience working for other distinguished publications including The Washington Post. Her primary audience for this piece is New York citizens. “A First Amendment Junkie” was first published in 1978, and argued that the First Amendment is all inclusive. Jacoby’s judgement is sound, and her use of logos, pathos, and ethos further reinforce this point.

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.

Free speech is the fundamental right, almost assumed as a divine ordinance on humans. Preliminary development of free speech starts at universities. Though considered an integral part of academic institutions and student intellectual growth, in the recent past there is growing intolerance for free speech ‘opinions’ expressed through different mediums. This paper compares two texts, “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” by Catherine Rampell, and “Restoring free speech on campus” by Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley. This paper argues that any text, without provisioning a counter narrative for the core argument, is lacking in its sense of completeness and ability to pre-resolve reactionary dissent.

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison. The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever-important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.

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.

A thought that could make many Americans sick is the thought of losing the basic human rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Others, however claim to feel queasy with the thought of Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian and its contents. One parent, Jennifer Andersen, who objects to the book says, “I began reading, and I started to cross out sections that I didn’t want him to read.” Her self-diagnosis is fueled by sheer ignorance of the right to freedom of expression. The censorship she imposes on her son is a poisonous prescription that ignores democracy. The belief that banning the book The Absolutely True

Lipmann uses diction, simile, and syntax to emphasize the hypocrisy of Americans who claim to support the freedom of speech for selfish interests rather than productive discussions that represent opposing arguments. Lippmann uses diction throughout this piece to showcase the strength the freedom of expression gives Americans. He uses powerful words with extremely positive or extremely negative connotations. He uses the word ‘indispensable’ when describing how the freedom of speech should be revered as, ‘magnanimous’ to describe people who are determined to protect the freedom of speech, and lastly, ‘suppressed’ to describe what is happening with the freedom of speech in America. By using such strong vocabulary it draws the reader’s attention to the power in the author’s voice that shines through his words.

America’s history is filled with constant arguing, debating, and bickering. Because America is so diverse and full of people with differing opinions, it is important that everyone is given a voice. The Bill of Rights is opened with the 1st amendment, which consists of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. These are the cornerstones of American society, and the freedom to assemble has guided America to where it is today. This promise was a direct response to many events in colonial America, has been defended in court as shown is the case of the Village of Skokie vs. the National Socialist Party, and was pushed to its limit at the White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville, yet the persistence of this right proves how controversy succumbs to the freedom of expression.

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.

Any American citizen who is interested in politics should read this book. The clashing of ideas in the past is strikingly similar to those of the present day, and it is documents like the Bill of Rights that provide a focus and backbone for discussion. Thanks to Carol Berkin, this brilliant piece of writing introduces the ten amendments from which we base our civil liberties. The incisive nature of the writing in this book furthers the understanding and appreciation of American

Op-ed is short for opinion editorial. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary Op-ed pages are typically published by magazines and newspapers to express personal opinions of the writer. In the short essay “Free-Speech Follies” by Stanley Fish was written about “op-ed pages crying out first amendment when op-ed pages they published turns out to be the cause of outrage and controversy” (para.3). The short essay also implied that people are using freedom of speech in the wrong way to get away with saying anything that could offend or threaten some minority groups. Stanley Fish also introduces self-censorship and how we should be self-censored when it comes to opinion based pages that we are publishing out to the public.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

When I saw in the syllabus that this was one of the readings I was very happy. I read part of this book last summer because my aunt bought me the book. I knew a little bit of our problem with freedom of speech, but this book really helped me see how big of problem it is. I have been a huge fan of Kirsten Powers the past few years. I love how she is not afraid of simply engage in a conversation and exchange ideas with people. She speaks of her personal beliefs rather than advocate for an employer or a party position. I believe from her that not every situation needs to end in an agreement. But if the people engaged or interacting in the conversation gains a better understanding of the issues involved, why people view the world as they do, with that it becomes clearer if you present your views as well as listening to what others have to say about the situation. She has done so well as a liberal on Fox news, and I believe a lot has to do with her parents and how she grew up. She can speak so freely without no care in the world. So is freedom of speech

    “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.”(thefreedictionary.com) Geoffrey R. Stone in “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism,” emphasizes the grievances and events occurring that lead up to wartime and how the freedom of speech was the main core. Stone goes into details on why Americans have kept suppressing and imprisoning dissents but have later on regretted their actions believing that they can change their patterns. He introduces his book by providing a brief overview on the first amendment and freedom of speech. The United States faced challenges of putting together the first amendment with the necessities of wartime. Lastly, Stone considers how Lincoln was a very hated man during the period of Civil War. Geoffrey’s well written book has been a bestseller that has wrapped up six series of events that were periods of war fervor but only the first two chapters and introduction will be discussed.