Who is Robyn Blumner? Perhaps she is simply your everyday editorialist for a daily newspaper. Or, as the former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLU), could she possibly have her own agenda? One of Blumner's columns entitled "Let's stand up for liberty" was published in a well known editorial writers magazine called "The Masthead". In summary, it focuses on freedom of speech, and how we tend to lose sight of it, or even have it taken from us during national hardships. She feels that the government tends to deny us of these freedoms when we need them the most, during war. Blumner sturdily supports her claims throughout the course of her column. However, does the fact that she was once affiliated with the …show more content…
Blumner claims "during World War I, few editorial boards stood up for civil liberties. Instead, they chose to reflect the xenophobic [anti-immigrant] views of their readership" [par.16]. In support, she quotes from a professor of journalism, Joseph McKerns, to back her statement. McKerns asserts "foreigners were the ones portrayed as a threat rather than merely exercising free speech" [par.18]. He also alleges "the daily press made a convenient separation, seeing the speech of the political activist as different from what it did" [par.17]. By accentuating her interest of immigrant's rights, could it be she is supporting yet again, her past organization?
Where do her priorities lie? So far we have identified her support of national freedom and immigrant's rights. Throughout the course of the article she also defends the rights of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and defends publishers that were prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act in wartime history. She may have valid claims, but she is still being biased. What about the natives of Iraq that gained liberties from the capture of Saddam Hussein? War doesn't always have viewed negatively. Apparently she was respected enough to be published. However, a little background on "The Masthead" is nothing more than an opinion writing magazine. Does this make her credible? I think not!
In the beginning I was compelled by her article. It truly made me
The years of 1763-1765 were truly defining moments for colonist of the colonies, soon to become the United States of America. ‘’War! War! This is the only way!” American Colonist shouted,as they took to the streets proclaiming defiance of British rule. “We as a people shall fight for our freedom and have victory.No more shall we continue to let others control our countries and give our money to a monarch who has no concern for our right’s, dedication that was put forth to help fight and respect us as loyal subjects.We must fight for our freedom!” When American colonist waged war it proved to be the only way for the colonies to become free from Britian. In turn, the colonist were justified in breaking away from England because of: The
1. Members of the Catholic or non-Trinitarians would be excluded from toleration under Maryland Law.
America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.
In the development process of America, its sound that legislative system has a very solid foundation for the construction of American society. The Bill of Rights as one of the successful act in America, its importance position has never been ignored. The Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison and came into effect on December 15, 1791. It has given the powerful support for the improvements of American society. The Bill of Rights has become an essential part in guaranteeing the further development of culture. The influence of The Bill of Rights can be easily found in its cultural revolutionizing. It can not only guarantee the harmonious relationship among all the walk of society, but can also promote the construction of harmonious
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.
Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are
The Sons of Liberty was an organization that was created in the Thirteen American Colonies.The secret group was formed to protect the rights of the colonists and to fight taxation by the British government.By the end of the year the Sons of Liberty existed to every colony.The Sons of Liberty formed out of a number of smaller protest groups in 1765.The first group was formed out of the Loyal Nine in Boston with other groups soon forming in New York and Connecticut.
When the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution, they were planned to shield the public from the national government and not the states. States had their individual constitutions, and their laws only had to comply with their constitution. The founders of our country were very concerned about creating too powerful of a centralized government that might overstep on the given civil liberties of the public. As a protection of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights was formed. The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of the Constitution and protect and preserve inalienable rights against abuse by the federal government.
The names and faces of those considered pioneers in the fight for rights and freedom may not be instantly recognizable, but nevertheless, they are an important part to the history of the United States of America. Throughout the history of our country, there has not just been an injustice towards black slaves, but also towards women, with both being unfairly discriminated against. It was the work of many individuals who brought the unfamiliar taste for rights for all God’s creatures to the mouths of many people. The impact of such people, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass, towards the demand for rights for women and slaves cannot be measured.
After the Revolution, the States adopted their own constitutions, many of which contained a Bill of Rights. The Americans still faced the challenge of creating a central government for their new nation. In 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained their “sovereignty, freedom and independence,” while the national government was kept weak and inferior. Over the next few years it became evident that the system of government that had been chosen was not strong enough to completely settle and defend the frontier, regulating trade, currency and commerce, and organizing thirteen states into one union.
Since the creation of the United States, the meaning of freedom has changed to meet changing attitudes. Throughout our nation’s history, there have been significant periods of racial, economic and civil rights inequalities. There are different meanings for freedoms that have been established throughout the historical period of the United States. During this modern era, the US had certain periods of time that lived up to the ideals of freedom such as the Gilded Age. In opposition, the US has also had periods of time where our ideals of freedom failed to meet the requirements of our nation, a prime example being the late 1940s when the US entered the Cold War and led to the anti-communism period of McCarthyism which ultimately restricted
America is commonly called the “Land of the Free”, but the abundance of liberties, and liberties for all, has not always been the case. The Puritans were some of the first to settle in the New World, but they were self-interested and did not come with the purpose of creating a free state for all. As time progressed, so did their believes, and by the time Tocqueville arrived from France, liberty was an important aspect of American life. So important that people would fight and die for it. Tocqueville, while impressed at the amount liberty and freedoms that citizens had, believed that America had a long way to go before it could call itself a truly free country. Fast forward over a hundred years later, and John Rawls lived in a time were the
The American Ideological Consensus is that “…the American people have shared much of the same ideals, the same basic principles, and the same patterns of belief” (McClenaghan 104). When America filled itself with ideologically homogenous people, their beliefs started to define our nation and became American identities. If asked what they think of America, peoples of other nations would say that the roads are made of glass, opportunity is in the air, and civil rights are plentiful. These accounts maybe accentuated; however, the underlying message is that the American people have more freedoms then the peoples of other nations do. The most widely known American identity is freedom, and even though that American identity has been tried and
This selection, Letter by a Female Indentured Servant, really gives you incite as to what life was like in the 1700s as an indentured servant. (Foner, 2011) The reader can really feel the pain she is going through while she was in America trying to pay her dues for passage to what they thought was the promise land. She wanted to ensure her father really knew what kind of horrible life she was living because of the details she included like she was whipped to the degree that she now serves the animals. Apparently, you didn’t speak of the horrible things that would occur as an indentured servant because she writes to her father that she hopes he will pardon the boldness of her complaints and she also hope
Awakening or to awake means “to wake up; to be or make alert or watchful” (Webster 23). This is what Edna Pontellier experienced in The Awakening.