Freedom Of Speech And Moral Rights

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Humorists are often seen as insignificant contributors of society. People consider humorists no more than just “entertainers”, willing to make fun of anything in order to make a crowd laugh, however, has the audience ever contemplated why humorists are the some of the only people who are allowed to critique anything that crosses their mind without consequences? Alain de Botton, claims the vital role of humorist is, “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” I agree with Alain de Botton’s claims, that humorists do hold an important role in society, which is far more than to entertain. They break the ice on delicate topics, communicating the messages to society. Political cartoons and the Colbert

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

Modern society allows humorists to touch upon offensive topics without receiving much criticism. As Alain de Botton claimed in his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, humorists’ role is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” De Botton’s argument proves legitimate. Many humorists, such as cartoonists and television hosts, decide to use their humor as a tool to prove an idea or express a belief that cannot be voiced candidly in public.

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.

In Status Anxiety, author de Botton correctly claims that humorists are expected to not only entertain their audience, but to make statements about controversial events that may be too sensitive to say directly and causally present them in a way that is easy for the public to understand. This is demonstrated through various forms of media such as television shows and political cartoons.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

In Alain de Botton’s book, Status Anxiety, he claims that a humorist’s purpose is “not merely to entertain, but to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” Humorists have more leeway when discussing controversial topics, thus they serve a vital function in society; however, humorists also have other intentions such as entertaining their audiences and earning revenue.

Humor has become manifested into nearly all aspects of the secular world. Whether it be in comics, writings, or television, some form of comedy is sure to be seen on a regular basis. It seems the world today depends on a good laugh every now and then, and Alain de Botton argued the purpose of this in his book Status Anxiety. He concluded that humorists are more than just a form of entertainment; They "convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly". These men and women are granted some degree of leeway to speak freely and candidly on ultimately any subject for the preservation of societal stability. Their representation of public sentiment results in the people feeling as if what they long to say is finally being heard on a larger platform. Humorists serve the vital role of being a true reflection of public opinion; however, they are not immune to

Satire is often regarded as one of the most effective ways to understand a society. It reveals the values of the society and serves as an amplifier for its ills. Mark Twain once said, “the human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.” Satire has long been a tool of political criticism, a means to make a moral point and to “attack vice and folly using wit and ridicule”. The word satire comes from the Latin word ‘satur’ and later ‘satura’ which translates roughly to poetic medley. Through the use of art, traditionally, prose and poetry, satire has continued to make a difference in shaping public consumption and perspective of news and encouraging activism, advocacy and civil participation.

Satire is commonly discussed and understood as the use of humor in literature and media to bring about an increase of awareness and change in society. While this definition is correct, it is not all encompassing. Satire can certainly employ humor (found in Horation-type satire) but it can also be effective without the use of laughter and amusement (known as Juvenalian satire). Through combining these different uses and the purposes of each type, a more encompassing definition may include the methods to bring about change in human institutions that are found as absurd, foolish, or full of vice or error. While often found in the lives of individuals, satire must be studied and have its components identified to be able to fully understand and comprehend the purpose of the issue being satirized.

Established in the Constitution, written in 1787, the Constitution guaranteed the citizens of the United States the rights of freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly in the First Amendment etched in the Bill of Rights. Throughout history, many Americans have experienced restrictions of freedom of speech during the United States earliest years as a country. John Adams, the second president of the United States, established the Alien and Sedition Act, which impeded upon Free Speech by restricting citizens from criticizing the government and president of their actions. Therefore, through the 1st Amendment, citizens should remain protected of their liberties in every aspect until they confiscate others of their liberties, and it should protect hate speech unless an individual’s liberties are in danger or under threat. The Supreme Court should define hate speech as threats that present another individual in obvious peril.

Today, comedy news shows are becoming progressively more popular, and in so, becoming a new source of information – which may, or may not, be a positive consequence. Most comedians twist the truth in order to connect to people and make them laugh. The article “A Serious Business: What Can Comedy Do?” suggests some comedians “use logic to make painful things make sense” (O’Hara 108). Satirical comedy acts as a relief mechanism in that it comforts people that may be wary about a certain subject, especially in the realm of politics. Similarly, Peter McGraw and Joel Warner discuss how comedy can act as a coping mechanism. The authors conclude that “activists all over the world have been using comedy as a form of political protest” (McGraw & Warner 147). Iain Ellis writes about how political satirists do more than just deliver jokes, they use satire “to expose, ridicule, and–implicitly–call for action and change” (Ellis 152). Ellis contends that comedy can make a difference by its constant presence in our daily lives. Socrates, Plato, and even shows like South Park believe that humor is a way to persuade others. One of the most effective expressions of humor to affect social change has been the inclusion of satire. Although humor often provides people a welcome escape from the burdens of their daily lives, the satirical comedy deconstructs social issues in various ways as a means to persuade the

Throughout history, free speech has been one of the most touchiest arguments anyone has ever known. Whether people should be allowed to speak their mind to express their individuality, or to say what they believe is morally right. But should free speech be a moral right?

These two groups can be seen as representing the two sides of the free speech ethical dilemma. On one hand, the group Antifa claims that they must silence the harmful and offense views of extremist groups such as neo-Nazis and other white supremacists. According to an article published about them by Berkeley, (which, of course, being political media, has some bias) members Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” essentially believe that to prevent totalitarian oppression of minorities, females, and basically anyone who is not a white man (one criticism many people have of them), they must prevent the voices of the oppressors from being heard. This includes taking actions ranging from blocking college students from attending events held by controversial speakers to wearing masks and physically attacking their opponents at demonstrations (Devulapalli). What is interesting about this group is that they are willing to go so far to prevent hateful speech from being voiced. I think most Americans wouldn’t agree with Antifa using violence to suppress the opinions of their white supremacist opponents, whatever they think of the supremacists’ opinions. Ironically, violent suppression of others’ ideas is a key part of what characterizes fascism, which is part of why so many people oppose them.