Walter Lippmann's Vocabulary

In this document we can see the point of view of voltaire concerning to the freedom of religion.

He was impressed by the freedom of thought in England (“Voltaire | Author and Philosopher”). He studied the works of John Locke, and adapted them to fit his own ways of conveying messages to the French revolutionists, such as writing Locke’s ideas and theories into a novel that could be read by anyone. Through his writing, Voltaire attempted to “bring about reform of the social and legal structure that existed at the time” (“Voltaire”1). His works spoke out against war, religious intolerance, and political and social injustice. He learned to speak and write what he truly thought from studying the works of both Locke and Newton (“Voltaire”2).

Freedom of speech is on the same level of importance as freedom of thought. Speech is taking one’s thoughts and transmitting them into words. Both are exiled in the world of Harrison Bergeron and are said to be unwanted. The opportunity to speak one’s free will is not a luxury it is a necessity for all humans. For a group of people to take this away from others and compress them is against

To begin, he uses emotional appeal to create powerful imagery to persuade the reader that celebrating freedom is wrong when slavery still exists. He announces, “fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them” (para. 4). By creating a picture in the audience’s mind of other people’s cries of freedom deriding slaves, they begin to feel ashamed for being so cheerful while African Americans have no liberty.

Lippman used paradox to emphasise the main ideals of the American way of life and the importance of freedom of speech in America. He quoted Voltaire saying, “‘I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it,’” (lines 14-16) This contradictory statement exemplifies what it is to be an American, and the incredible right to speak your mind that all citizens possess. The idea still maintains relevance 77 years later as the right to protest through flag burning is a highly debated topic. Lippman used this paradoxical quote to illustrate that being American is about tolerating one another, and respecting each other’s right to speak one’s mind.

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.

Carlson gives evidence of the decline in public discourse by summarizing an incident in which a talk radio host crossed the line of decency by failing to respect a person whose ideas differed from his and his listeners’. Why is it important to maintain civility toward those whom you disagree?

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).

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.

Prominent conservative writer and founder of the National Review Magazine, William F. Buckley Jr, in his argumentative essay, “Why Don’t We Complain?” suggests that Americans are extremely passive when it comes to confronting conflicts for fear of causing a bigger affair. Buckley supports his claim by first using colloquial diction, then sarcasm, and finally hyperbole. Buckley’s purpose is to familiarize the passivity of Americans and draw extremes from these actions in order to show his distaste towards the growing phenomena of an unassertive, compliant American society and its repercussions. He adopts an ironic and informal tone for inactive members of society who let more than just everyday occurrences go with no words spoken in objection.

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).

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

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

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.