R. V. Keegstra : in Support of the Dissent Essay

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

René König was a German sociologist who mentions social antisemitism, economic antisemitism, religious antisemitism, and political antisemitism. König states that the different forms show that the "origins of anti-Semitic prejudices are rooted in different historical periods." Bernard Lazare identifies three forms of antisemitism: Christian antisemitism, economic antisemitism, an ethnologic antisemitism. William Brustein names four categories: religious, racial, economic, and political. The Roman Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism:

The authors examples help explain why trying to control what people do and say has a negative effect. On several college campuses, associations are trying to stop people from being offended by anything that did not make them feel comfortable or welcome. One example was in Florida when an instructor used the phrase “It looks like you guys are being slowly suffocated by these questions” (Lukianoff & Haidt) and students turned in his statement causing him to get suspended. Adults and students are both being affected from these ridiculous rules. This rule is “creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up” (Lukianoff & Haidt), but not everyone is going to agree or like everything people say.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

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.

In the documentary “America and the Holocaust”, the view learns that anti-Semitism was prevalent in America. Many are unaware that

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

The author comes closest to stating his thesis when he writes that “the new policy will turn into the most severe limitation on academic freedom in Canada in this century”. While the first half of the article illustrates the situation at Trent university, the second half explains the academic consequences of restricting all content that may be deemed offensive. He gives a definition on what can be considered inappropriate in the fourth paragraph, including gestures or remarks that might be reasonably known to be

With seeing how convincing such an evil individual is shows exactly where these Nazis had inherited such persuasive and manipulative skills to persuade these people into categorizing Jews as an

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

People are given the right through the freedom of press to debate or ague an issue that they believe to have received little justification. The liberty to express social views through media is necessary in the development of a healthy and efficient democracy, as making statements without fear of persecution constitutes the “eyes and ears” of the public. For example, it is stated in the excerpt from the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780 that “the liberty of press is essential to the security of freedom in a state.” This statement supports that the freedom of press secures the other rights of a citizen, as it promotes the free exercise of words and language. This document, along with the final draft of the Bill of Rights, contributed to the basis of the freedom of press because the right to express one’s personal views and perspectives “ought [are] not to be restricted” or abridged to any

There is always an entity in the air, a presence that encroaches beneath the ground, or even an engrossing feeling that is within the human psyche. This invisible social force that influences everyday life is called prejudice, to which the excruciating backlash Jews have received for their cultural identity and traditions even has a term for it: anti-semitism. There are a large variety of anti-semitic myths that been associated by inaccurate stereotypes to which ignorance continues to breed. In order to properly understand how to debunk these pigeonhole categories, three particular myths will be explored to further comprehend how anti-semitism was in the past and how it currently relates to contemporary times. Jews known for contributing to well poisoning during the Black Death alongside how this group has been linked to being known as “Christ killers” and “ritual murders” provide an ugly, erroneous portrayal that harms the Jewish community and should be ended immediately.

Alexander Meicklejohn’s theory on freedom of speech is Democratic Self Government where the people are a democracy who governs them. This type of system can only work if the people come together as a community and have a knowledgeable electorate, “as the self-governing community seeks, the method of voting to gain wisdom in action, it can find it only in the minds of its individual citizens. If they fail, it fails. That is why freedom of discussion for those minds may not

As always, there are those individuals that oppose the power to censor. There are members of society that believe in the freedom to speak publicly and to publish. This is a basic belief in the freedom of expression and is to be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. On the eve of the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the first wave of a nationwide survey, comprising more than 1500 citizens was conducted. Through this survey it was found that American rate free speech as their second most precious First Amendment right and regard a free press highly in the abstract. Although there are strong cases made for and against censorship, the rising trend calling for censorship can threaten our basic rights to free expression and the right to be informed. At the center of the debate is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees our right to read, speak, write, and communicate freely. The government at the state or federal level cannot