Persuasive Free Speech

“I have opinions that, frankly, a lot of people are thinking. They just won't tell people. They don't pollsters. They don't tell journalists. But they think it” (Lieberman). These are the words of conservative blogger and self-proclaimed “provocateur,” Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos had been scheduled to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but given UC Berkeley Police Department’s security concerns surrounding his appearance, the event had been cancelled. Yiannopoulos argues that his First Amendment right had been violated and vows to return for a future event, “Free Speech Week.” Additionally, Ku Klux Klan activist Chris Cantwell has been invited to speak. The University argues that due to Yiannopoulos’ past doxing activities and the threat of violence associated with his presence, it is not required to accommodate such speech. In this memo, I will provide legal precedents arguing that 1) “Free Speech Week” should be permitted to proceed with or without Chris Cantwell, 2) the associated KKK rallies should be permitted to proceed, and 3) a counter-argument addressing the strengthening of civil disobedience.

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.

I appreciate all that you have done. Thank you for your time being a Senator for Iowa for 36 years. You have done a great job of speaking out for our state. I understand it must be hard to be Senator. Having to listen to everyone must be difficult.

“‘Tweet. Tweedle-lee-Dee’ (118 Character Left),” by Olivia Fletcher writes from the definition pattern of development. Fletcher’s thesis was, “Since those days, the tweet has morphed into a word whose meaning your great grandfather could have never imagined when he was listening to Day’s hit on Billboard’s Hot 100.” The author organizes her content into different segments; first she explains the history of the new definition of a tweet and she also compares Twitter and Facebook. Her next two paragraphs summarize the negative effects of tweeting, and these paragraphs also include a precis of a “Twitter war” between John Mayer and Perez Hilton. The last two paragraphs in the body discuss the positive effects of tweeting in schools. In the final

The delegates filled Independence Hall with raucous applause. The voiceover of a Fox New pundit began narrating the scene.

History does not change. Malcolm X once said, “I don’t even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence.

Different types of medias are booming with campaign advertisements, attacks from different parties, and most importantly the arguments that affect the decisions we make. Furthermore, Twitter has been one of the most influencing subjects that has been primarily recorded under my multimedia sections; this social media has reflected the thousands of tweets that display the conflicting opinions of numerous Canadians. As I was scrolling through, I could not help but realize the amount of

The queries regarding blocking of websites were in the wake of the government's recent directions to block twitter handles of prominent journalists and commentators who were critical of the government's policies. Under the Constitution, the Government cannot muzzle free speech except if a reasonable restriction is imposed in order to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of the country, national security, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence (Article 19(2) of the Constitution).

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.

Twitter is Shapiro’s most active platform. He has over 805,000 followers. In one tweet, he cites recent Antifa (Anti-fascist) terrorist attacks saying “free speech isn’t free. It costs over $600,000 thanks to Antifa.” Antifa is a group most known for inciting violent riots at political rallies in an attempt to gain political foothold, and were most recently labelled a terrorist organization by the FBI. They claim to be using “free speech” to silence those who disagree with them and destroy property. Shapiro’s tweet has over thirty-two thousand

Greenblatt’s 2013 article frames the responsibilities of public administrators who face ethical dilemmas in the attempt to ensure civil liberties while protecting all members of society as being complex and culturally relative. Greenblatt’s article addresses various issues surrounding modern interpretations and use of free speech. The biggest points that Greenblatt writes about are the use of social media to spread ideas and how freedom of speech is not universal. The author explains how social media and the Internet helped spark governmental changes that brought on the Arab Spring in 2011. He also discusses how nations police what is publicly said, either through laws or government control over news sources and the Internet. What I found

We could agree that social media should be regulated to avoid trolling incidents like the ones mentioned. However, the Leveson report, a hotly debated topic at present, is trying to introduce regulations on the press, with no guidelines on how to deal with social media. Daily Mail online editor Martin Clarke says it has “destroyed the ability of governments, companies and individuals to control the flow of information to the

  Abstract:  The issue of free speech has been around since the founding fathers first ratified the constitution of the United States.  With the emergence of new technology, especially the Internet, freedom of speech has been redefined and its limits tested.  What are the limitations of free speech on the Internet, and how can they be enforced?  These are the constitutional questions for the digital age.

On that note, we must ask ourselves this: how free is freedom of speech allowed to be? Free enough to voice an opinion but restraining

Walk into a library, you have a computer, you are most likely carrying a phone, at home, you most likely have a computer, laptop, tablet, or even all three. This shows that we have social media access at the tip of our fingers, making it so easy to open up the site or app and just type out a phrase or paragraph, letting hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions, of people know what you think. Back then, it was harder to let the nation know what you were thinking, and it took even take months before everyone knew, versus today, where the nation might know by the end of the day, and it’s because of this that companies regulate what their users are posting, attempting at keeping the online world free from threats, hate, harmful words, and more. Rutenberg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg as he says, “At a certain point I’d rather take myself off the platform where speech has become so become so offensive than advocate for the suppression of that speech” (2). Twitter also said that “everyone on Twitter should feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, but behavior that harasses, intimidates or uses fear to silence another person’s voice should have no place on our platform” (Rutenberg 2).