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.
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard – summary and rhetorical analysis (p. 123) Summary Derek Bok, a past president of Harvard University, presents his argument in defense of free speech at Harvard in “protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard. Bok introduces the problem with an incident at Harvard when two students hung Confederate flags in public view and describes students’ reactions. While some students urged that Harvard requires the removal of symbols, others considered those symbols a form of free speech, and one student protested the flags by displaying a swastika. Bok proceeds with his argument by providing background of how different universities have resolved similar conflicts in different ways, by enacting codes or refusal to impose such restrictions. 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.
Neusner’s argument would have been more effective if he had supported his claims with other professor’s opinions instead of just his biased ones. This speech also shows that the author has a very negative perception of his students and those at the university as a whole. Neusner does make some effective points, but fails to present enough sufficient evidence to support the issue he is
He additionally uses backing to support this warrant by creating the idea that “Any satisfaction it gives to the students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes to many others” (118). However, a counterargument, or rebuttal, is also provided in response to this warrant. Bok states that “[The students] must have known they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feeling of other so essential to building and preserving a strong and harmonious community” (118). Bok provides us with a counter way of thinking. We now, as a result of believing the intentions of the students were to upset others, are drawn to side against them and their rights to display these
Many will agree with this, although almost everyone has participated in the morally wrongness of this situation and many few can be excluded from this act of injustice. Overall, the morals of the common person needs to change. It needs to change to be less selfish and be willing to give without getting. This change will not happen for many people. The amount of narcissism in our society has increased from generation to generation, lessening the amount of self willingness to only give for a non profitable reason.
However, in Fahrenheit 451 Beatty describes conformity as a positive aspect of society – he argues that conformity in behavior prevents violence and jealousy by restricting the gifted and talented people from their ability to excel, which is good in a way because then the others won‘t feel bad. However, the real problem in the situation Beatty describes is not the exceptionally bright child (when he is trying to show Montag the uselessness of books) but the group of people of those who submit to it. Unfortunately, this very situation occurs repeatedly in our society today. People who choose not to conform may be persecuted by the groups of people who submit into censorship, and through that act of persecution the people reinforce conformity of
In Berlin’s essay, he argues “It is one thing to say I may be coerced for my own good which I am too blind to see… with the greatest desperation.” In this specific passage from his essay, he is asking himself if he is ‘free’ or ‘truly free’ in his decision making. Berlin believed in human freedom, and defended the negative idea of freedom. He believed negative freedom was simpler and was a better way to gain personal freedom as an individual. With positive freedom comes limits to full liberty because positive freedom meant individuals worked together to reach their overall goals, which meant there were set equalities amongst everyone. The very idea of sharing meant he could not be ‘truly’ free in a sense where his personal freedom was compromised.
According to him there is no escape from the weight of means and ends (Ramsay, 33). We often hear people while faced with certain difficult situations saying that the end does not justify the means but rarely have we ever thought of what that means. In reality, this means for example that one cannot result to stealing as a way of satisfying his/her needs as this would be considered immoral and punishable by law. Whatever the end is, one is not supposed to result to immoral behavior to achieve that
China has articulately stated that the freedom of speech shall be limited under the governance of laws. (Barry Par3)Any speech that has the intention of threatening the stability of society shall be penalized. But the opposing opinions insisted that there is no direct linkage between stability and free speech. As a result one of the controversies was raised on whether the freedom of speech has the potential threat against stability, causing hazardous unrest in the society. However, by looking back the history, we can make a responsible conclusion that the liberalization of speech can neither jeopardize the stability, nor undermine the nation.
Even today, there are many countries that do not have the basic right or privilege of freedom of speech. The term “Free Speech” means that all speech is allowed, but that is not true because there are some exceptions. The forms of speech which are not protected is speech that is derogatory, and speech that displays a clear and present danger, but other forms are “free”. For example, we are free to walk anywhere and announce anything we want, whether it be against the government or otherwise. Many Americans forget about what is most important about the first amendment: the protection of the right to announce a opinion without being prosecuted by law.