Freedom of Speech with Consent of the Others “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, is an essay about the struggle of reconciling the rights of free speech, while avoiding the racial tension. The essay briefly describes the difficulties of dealing with this dilemma of keeping one’s freedom of speech without insulting others. Bok uses the example of a Confederate flag that was hung by students from Harvard University and a Swastika flag was hung as a response to this act, which were both an offensive form of expression. He suggests two solutions to this problem of racist speech. The first one is ignoring any offensive speech and the second one is making conscience about how forms of expression can be offensive to others through dialogue.
The firm of “Warren and Brandeis” spent much of their time arguing against monopolies and large corporations and advocating for free speech. Together Brandeis and Warren published a famous article in The Harvard Law Review, “The Right to Privacy.” This article argued that private citizens should have the right to be left alone and the press should not be permitted to publish their photos or the details of their lives without their permission. Brandeis and Warren were angered by the media attention focused on the lavish parties the Warren family threw throughout the 1880s. They wrote, "Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery.” Brandeis and Warren also 2 stated that during the first 100 years of the United States, the
Carmichael no longer strode towards racial integration, but rather focused his desires on separation. His Speech argues that African Americans must engage in a “psychological struggle” for control of their own identity as well as question the value of society as a whole. (Carmichael 16) He used rhetorical ethos, pathos and logos to strengthen his arguments. Originally, Carmichael followed Martin Luther King, Jr.’s path of nonviolence and civil disobedience, but by 1966, Carmichael had begun to question the effectiveness of King's nonviolent strategy. When James Meredith, a demonstrator who led a 220-mile "March Against Fear," was shot trying to prove that white violence was not to be feared, Carmichael came to the realization that King’s nonviolence and civil disobedience strategy was not working.
Contraversial Speakers Allowed on College Campuses Many controversial speakers are wrongfully perceived as hazards to many communities, when in fact, they should be highly respected for going against the grain and daring to be different by challenging the current knowledge. College campuses around the nation are banning multiple speakers in fear that a riot might break out or someone might get offended. Currently, controversial speakers are glared at as mere trouble makers, but they should be appreciated because of how passionately they bring new ideas to the table, and they, most definitely, should be allowed to speak at college campuses. One of the major reasons why controversial speakers should be allowed to speak at college campuses is college students need these speakers to listen to and develop their own opinions. They could do this by going to a debate between two controversial speakers, listen to both points, then think about what was said and form their own point of view.
John F. Kennedy is the speaker in this address, and he was the President of the United States at the time of his speech. Kennedy addressed his “fellow citizens.” This affects the way the speech was written, worded, and delivered because it has to equally appeal to each citizen that is listening. When Kennedy addressed racism, his manner was almost not to bring the black man up, but to bring the white man down to where they have placed blacks. To give them a sense of guilt for the unjustifiable treatment the blacks receive. In this speech, Martin Luther King Jr. is the speaker.
Both King and Thoreau discuss civil disobedience and when it is just to break unfair laws. Another topic they discussed is the merit of authority, and how they were disappointed by the action the majority takes towards certain issues. Henry Thoreau mostly emphasizes on how civil disobedience is important because he believes that governments should consider everybody's opinions. Both have the same common logic, but they express their views in a completely different manner. King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic.
Political ideology of America was to prevent communism from spreading and ultimately defeat USSR in a cold war. However this ideology impacted negatively on society , as they though it was not their war and a useless thing to do . The movement against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began small,among peace activists and leftist intellectuals on college campuses. But gained national prominence in 1965, after the United States began bombing North Vietnam in earnest. Anti-war marches and other protests, such as the ones organized by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) , The Youth Campaign Against Conscription in 1962 and the “Save Our Sons” movement in 1965.
Arguments on Gun Control A lot of people feel that some forms of gun laws are needed to lower the level of gun related violence and crimes in the US. The opponents of gun control feel that it would be an infringement on their second amendment rights. The outcome of gun control has strong political implications because it determines the present day meaning of the Second Amendment. Each side has strong points to their arguments but I feel it should be the right of every person to make their mind up for their self. In the1800s the supreme court made the decision that the “right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution” followed up with a decision that states are “free to regulate the rights of citizens to bear arms”.
Are Funeral Protests Protected Speech? Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest at military funerals? This argument has become a very popular and heated debate throughout the United States. Though I strongly disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church, according to the United States Constitution, their First Amendment right allows them to picket military funerals. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides individuals with important personal freedoms.
The moral arguments are that people should be allowed to move to any country that they feel like and they should not be restrained. The arguments against this is that people could come and cause harm to the country. People develop stereotypes that foreigners are dangerous. It does not help the fact that the 9/11 attacks were by foreigners posing as students with their visas. This lead people to become suspicious of foreigners and the government placed many restrictions on the security of people from other countries.