Jon Lovett : A Screenwriter And Former Speechwriter For President Obama

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

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.

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

In times when the U.S. confronts serious threats extremist rhetoric sometimes seems appropriate and necessary. One could argue that speeches advocating the end of slavery or the fight against modern terrorists was justified. However, those well meaning words can plant thoughts of violence in the minds of the easily persuaded to commit violence to gain results (Davis upenn.edu). Rhetoric used by political leaders is sometimes uncivil because politicians do not consider the consequences of what they say or do before they execute their plans. With this being said, it would be extremely difficult to remedy the incivility of political discourse without damaging the right of free speech granted by the first amendment; however, President Obama’s speech in Tucson, Arizona offers sound advice for political leaders, speechmakers, and those who have a wide reaching

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.

Lovett puts a list of examples of people of all backgrounds were told to shut up for voicing their opinion about anything. People such as Paula Deen for being a racist, Alec Baldwin for speaking on gay people, and Martin Bashir about Sarah Palin were just a few common names to mention. The resemblance of this list is showing just how powerful two idiots holding a conversation can be. Mr. Lovett thoroughly explains throughout his essay that demanding someone to mute their view, idea, or voice is an absurd thought. If no one is taking the time to hear those timid individuals out how will this society grow?

From Martin Luther King Junior to Mahatma Gandhi, the most influential social leaders understood the power of peaceful protest and advancing the world through effective debate. Despite their example, Lukianoff accurately displays that the power of citizens as well as students has been employed to dissuade speakers with controversial perspectives from sharing the state of their American mind. Not only is this concept dangerous to the second amendment but to society as a whole. By handpicking which viewpoints are expressed in any environment we create citizens who are unable to handle constructive criticism or debate to advance everyone’s understanding.

Defending free speech is the way of life whether we agree or not. We are opinionated by nature it is freeing to speak your mind and not be penalized in a manner of speaking. Everyone has a form of love and hatred either forthcoming consciously or subconsciously. Just as there is yin & yang, day & night, or yes & no the truth should be spoken with a transformation in ones thoughts. These certainties don’t have to be what one thinks or feels confident in what makes the right for the topic to be defended in the free-speech wars. Neither the less outrageous attacks on freedom of expression have attracted much interest from those who are non-believers in civil liberty. The danger today is not just that we lose the free-speech wars, but that we risk surrendering our most precious liberty without a fight. There is nothing

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