In the article, “The Indispensable Opposition,” author, Walter Lippmann, argues his claim that we must view the freedom of oppositions as a way to improve our decisions in a democratic society rather than just tolerating that freedom of speech. When freedom of speech is tolerated and only seen as a right to speak, Lippmann believes that the liberty of opinion becomes a luxury. Moving forward, Lippmann then states that we must understand that the freedom of speech for our opponents are a vital necessity since it provides our own opinions to grow in improvement. Through practical experience, we realize we need the freedom of opposition and is no longer just our opponent ’s right.
Reynolds’s concludes her use of pathos by stating the loss of freedom we experience from government censorship as a lest effort to convince her audience to
In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech. There is a difference between having hurt feelings when two people simply differ on views of a matter and what is deemed as “dignity harms”, which is when people are deemed as unworthy of respect. Fish believes that the First Amendment is indifferent to the effects on society.
David Brooks writer of “One Nation Slightly Divisible,” tries to control the audience’s minds by using “we” in his article. Similarly, Jonathan Rauch, writer of “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” argues in a biased point of view in an unique way to attract audience to believe his personal view towards prejudice. Even though both Brooks and Rauch share the same bias perspective, Brooks reveals a more pervasive biased opinion compared to Rauch. David Brooks stands out with a positive effect of bias and to convince the readers and help unfold his viewpoint and grasp the audience 's attention. Rauch also uses bias to convince the reader but was not as effective as Brooks ' tactics used in emotion, argument and
Smolla writes about the First Amendment in his essay, "Speech Overview". He discusses what freedom of speech is, why Americans hold the First Amendment in such high regard, and how it can be conflicting to many American's "social instincts". The main idea that Smolla is arguing is that Americans embrace freedom of speech and individuality, even though it may cause conflict. He recognizes that some limitations must exist, but the freedom to express our thoughts is the American way. Smolla points out that many controversial items are approved due to the first amendment, even though they conflict with patriotism.
If they don’t like what somebody does, they push them deeper, until they cannot see who they are. For an example let us go to page 63. Equality hides a secret from a council member, and through the bare of bickering, Equality is then sentenced to being lashed bare. Because a person utilizing what would be known as freedom of speech, they get whipped? What world is this to ask for the basic human right to be stripped from the humans themselves?
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
Pathos is an appeal to emotions and creates an emotionally provoked response to convince an audience. At the end of his speech, Obama assured America of a positive outcome if he gets re-elected saying “...and if I have the privilege of being your president for another four years, I promise you I will listen to your voices. I will fight for your families and I will work every single day to make sure that America continues to be the greatest nation on earth” (www.politico.com). When he mentioned this, he was implying to the American people that they would have a say in things that are going on. This signified the use of pathos because it related to people’s feelings by showing them that they have someone in charge they could instill trust into.
The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.
It further postulates that such commentary on public figures is not only legal, but also healthy — implicitly making the argument that Free Speech is an essential feature of participation in democracy, and that public figures must bow to such caricatures in exchange for the power that society has bestowed upon them. It summarises this belief with a quote taken directly from the Hustler v. Falwell judgement: "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas. Freedom to speak one 's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty, but essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. In the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are nonetheless protected by the First
David Foster Wallace really captures the use of pathos in his essay Consider
1.0 INTRODUCTION In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), freedom of speech falls under the Article 19 which is the freedom of opinion and expression. It protects one’s freedom ‘to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (The United Nations, 1948). Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adds that the freedom of expression could be ‘either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’. Besides being an individual’s fundamental liberty of expression, Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Russell W. Galloway (1991) states that free speech is the ‘matrix of all other freedoms’.
Into the wild is a book written by Jon Krakauer. There is also a movie directed by sean penn. The main character is chris mccandless. He goes on a fool's trip running away from society and ended up dead in alaska. Shaun callarman says he was bright and ignorant at the same time. I believe that his argument was valid and he makes a good point.