This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
The major premise of his argument is that “the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” Thus, though he regrets that the students involved behaved in this fashion, Bok claims that censorship is dangerous and goes against the value of communication and American principles of democracy. He concludes his argument by suggesting that instead of enforcing codes, and thus violating the right to free speech, it would be better either to ignore such communications or to speak with those who perform insensitive acts. Rhetorical analysis Derek Bok organizes his argument by first describing the problem, then presenting both sides of approaches to resolving it, and finally explaining his personal stand on the issue. The rhetorical structure of such approach allows Bok present the argument fairly by conceding to the proponents of speech code enforcement that display of Confederate flags or swastikas is indeed insensitive and offensive. This pattern of organization also allows Bok to distinguish between the
Thoreau’s purpose is to convince the citizens of America to not follow the majority, but do what is felt to be morally right. Thoreau believes that citizens have the right and responsibility to disobey laws and regulations if they are unjust and not moral. Another one of Thoreau’s main points is that there
What Americans do have a right to is their opinion and the means by which to express it, no matter if the opinion is favorable or not. There are some advocates who champion for restrictions on unfavorable speech, like violent or racist remarks. And though the intentions behind such beliefs are made in good faith, it is unrealistic to believe the mission of filtering out racist speech could be completed without catching in the same net all kinds of other speech that is considered "OK" (Lawrence III 514). I firmly believe that a government that tells its citizens what is appropriate to say will soon be dictating what they may think also, and by that, it is unlawful for the government to regulate racist or violent speech. By doing so the government would intrude on students' creativity and learning process, would set illusive restraints on racist behavior, and undermine the Constitution at whole.
While that might be the case in many instances, freedom of speech is a more positive advantage than a negative threat and abridging it is against the First Amendment. In his essay "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus", Charles Lawrence writes "I am troubled that we have not listened to the real victims, that we have shown so little understanding of their injury, and that we have abandoned those whose, race, gender, or sexual preference countinues to make them second- class citizens." He implies that freedom of speech thretens minorities because it allows racial insults and offensive speech. However, the same took that is used against minorities can be used to fight back. Freedom of speech can be used for them to defend themselves.
Freedom of Speech *? * by Daniel Torres Freedom of speech is somewhat of a double edged sword. Why do people promote freedom of speech when they have something to say, yet when they find something supposedly “offensive”, they completely change their mind, and go against it? How is it that people want freedom to say whatever their heart pleases, but they’re always on the lookout to hear something they can feel offended by. I find it disturbing, to not say disgusting, this newly found need of self-entitlement people have now.
He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
The right of “innocent until proven guilty” is one of the most important rights we Americans have. Regardless if these people are enemies of the Country, they stillhave the same rights under our laws. Freedoms of Americans are spelled out plainly in the Constitution, guarded by our laws, and the treaties we have with other countries. Torture violates all of these guidelines. If we do not show these freedoms to people of other countries, then we do our whole country a dishonor.
Good day, My name is Kalel and my presentation is about how “Free speech does not include hate speech.” The definition of hate speech outside the law, is defined as any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as: race, colour, wealth, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristics; whereas free speech or Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's ideas via speech. Because "freedom" is understood as a personal freedom with limits for every individual: your freedom stops where somebody else's freedom begins. Since hate speech is a form of verbal aggression, it is seen as overstepping the limits of someone else's personal freedom, like any unwelcome act of force. The popular catchphrase of free speech defenders is a quote which reads: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," which basically means that not everybody will agree with what you say but you have the right to say it and therefore nobody can take that right away for you. However this is a law that needs to be defended as in current times, one really needs to take care of what he/say is saying as just by simply speaking your mind at the wrong time can have serious consequences.
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.