The New Yorker Vs Free Speech Analysis

The thesis presented by Charles Lawrence is most likely to be “Free speech is necessary for democracy but must also be used with tolerance,” because he constantly explains the benefits

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

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

Again, it should be noted that by use of the word ‘promote', it is implicit that the material on which the promotion is based exists. Censoring intolerance, or forcibly punishing it by imprisonment, is not an effective tactic. Without the freedom to offend, we cannot recognise these social problems, nor fight them with any real conviction. Relating back to this line of debate is of course the overseas publication of the controversial Danish cartoons. Cultural tensions within the European Muslim communities have been building up for decades; the Danish Cartoon Armageddon of early this year has only proven if anything, that social tolerance cannot be won through silence or apathy. Rather, it can only be gained through the implementation of free speech. To claim however that the caricatures championed some great ‘in defence of free speech movement' is wrong; they were, in themselves, badly drawn, inarticulate, and obscenely unfunny. The Danish cartoons were deliberately provocative, and as such blur the reasonable confines of expression. To lampoon the free speech cause by using them to argue for censorship is ridiculous. One does not go around punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence; similarly, the cartoons should not be used to test the attendant dangers of absolute free

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.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

Brayden Libby Mrs. Pound English II PreAP/Block 7 14 May 2018 Rhetorical Analysis of “Hate Speech and the First Amendment” In an article titled “Hate Speech and the First Amendment”, the author provides an overview of the debate and opposing side’s viewpoints. The author adopts an unbiased tone in order to convey key topics of the debate to an audience that is already putting up defenses to protect their stance. The purpose of the article is to suggest that the boundaries between opposing parties can be overcome by finding a middle ground in how to handle hate speech through the objective use of rhetorical devices.

He believes that since hate speech legislation is seen as acceptable and necessary in most developed nations that it is therefore the principles are also applicable to the United States. He openly admits that he does not accept any assumptions that make up free-speech jurisprudence, because they are contrary to his views on how society needs to address hateful speech. The assumptions he rejects include the tendency for truth to prevail in the marketplace of ideas, the effectiveness of counter speech, and that content-based restrictions are bad.

This article was published nearly a year ago online in the National Review, which hosts articles across a wide conservative spectrum. The intended audience of this article is Americans who do not agree that the freedom of speech portion of the First Amendment is important, or that hate speech should be exempted from it. The week prior to the publishing of this article, two terrorists had attacked the Garland Community Center with gunfire in front of an exhibit depicting cartoon images of Muhammad. The author, Tom Rogan, was based in Washington, DC at the time and was a panelist on The McLaughlin Group and held the Tony Blankley chair at the Steamboat Institute. The McLaughlin Group is a conservative TV program in which citizens discuss the

While I won’t claim that free speech is without its flaws, I will contend that it is itself necessary to equality which was brought up as a counter argument. When we allow speech that has no impact on public safety to be regulated we open the door to interpretation, this is a gamble. Does the interpreter share my views, or yours, or someone else’s entirely? What would America look like if the proponents of slavery were allowed to regulate speech on the topic, or the world if the National Socialist had achieved their goals? Speech can harm, it can be hateful, and cause adverse reactions, but so can many things we think nothing of because they serve to facilitate everyday life. If we regulate speech based on harm it will only be as harmless as those that regulate it. I think that is something most wouldn’t care to risk, regardless of color, creed, or nationality. When a majority solution can’t be found we as a people tend to prefer freedom as the doctrine so we may all be equal in

In his essay, “The Campus: An Island of Repression in a Sea of Freedom”, Chester Finn details the growing movement for political correctness at the collegiate level. He quotes the regents of Massachusetts, “There must be unity and cohesion in the diversity which we seek to achieve, thereby creating an atmosphere of pluralism” (Finn 58). However, that pluralism does not parallel the First Amendment. In this situation, the issue is not freedom of expression, but the steps taken to limit it. An article written by Maegan Vazquez for Fox News details a stipulation to the speech code at Indiana University Southeast. The code states that students are restricted to expressing their opinions in “free speech” zones. However, Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, fires back “It's not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits ‘any act of ridicule...or embarrassment,’ and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive." He sums up the damage that this situation is causing with his final statement. “You're teaching [college students] that they're not equipped to live in a free society” (Vazquez). Therefore, those parents who worry about the indoctrination of their college-age children are justified in that fear as this problem is widespread and

In light of the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo Headquarters in early 2015, the topic of free speech seemed to regalvanize. This conversation will only pick up more momentum and fully convicted sentiments with the rise of social movements like the Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Warrior movements. Edward Morrisey writes his article, The Coming Demise of Free Speech in America, to share information regarding the first amendment, respective court cases, and the results of an implementation of a hypothetical ‘hate speech’ law.

This can be seen when discussing France as a secular nation, how religion and the state are at conflict with each other and how adherents of Islam are uniform with beliefs in relation to this potentially unconstitutional law.

The American debate regarding censorship of hate speech is moving from traditional forms to newer ones found online. In particular, the internet has become a key organizing tool for hate groups. There is a large growing group of Internet members who can access the Internet and can have the opportunity to express an opinion about anything to compose their thoughts to the World Wide Web audience. The Internet allows freedom of expression without any limitations or regulation. Some viewers find the resultant of speech to be exciting and other viewers see speech over the Internet to be insulting, degrading, and offensive. Often when people are interacting on social media they cross over the line. Frequently one person’s right to free

The first Amendments and its protections of speech, religion, press, and assembly are considered almost sacred rights by the American people, but in light of recent events such as the rise in prominence of the alt-right movement and white nationalist protests occurring on college campuses, we must review how certain rights and privileges granted by our constitution are misused by groups that perpetuate hate, violence, and fear. In this paper, I would like to argue that hate speech, and other forms of speech that injure shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause because it has the power to incite people to violence and cause harm to marginalized groups.