Winston Smith Case

1074 Words3 Pages

Good Morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am honored to represent my client Mr. Winston Smith in the case of Winston vs Oceania. You have heard the prosecution’s case claiming that my client is a criminal and deserves to be where he is, and that my client willingly broke Oceanic law. However, I will prove that not only is my client not a criminal, but instead a hero. Exhibit A I am holding in front of you, your garden variety notepad harmless right yet this item was enough to start the process of making my client a marked man. Now if you think this is harsh allow me to present Exhibit B, a note, not a note of anger or doom but a note of expression of one’s love for the woman of his dreams. Lastly Exhibit C I hold here a book written …show more content…

In Exhibit A, I showed you a notebook. The notebook displays my client Winston Smith’s thoughts and feelings. Oceania took over the rights of their people not being able to think and speak on their own. Winston didn’t have anyone he could share his true feelings with, so he resulted in buying a notebook and taking a risk when The Party existed. The party interfered with the things that my client thought about and wrote. Winston was so infuriated with the government he once wrote, “DOWN WITH BIG BOTHER.”(Page 20) They interfered with the human rights that my client held. Even when the party tortured him he couldn’t do the things he did before. Only because he was so in fear of the party he didn’t act like he did before. It is not until his actions with Julia in the hidden apartment are discovered that the Thought Police search his home and also discover the diary which helps to incriminate my client. The diary symbolized his freedom and desires which he can’t share …show more content…

Exchange of ideas should be free and not interfered by others. Everyone should have freedom of opinion, according to article 19. My client didn’t have the chance to have freedom of opinion he was suppressed to withhold his ideas. He couldn’t express himself which is a crime itself. O’Brien stated, “The programme it sets forth is nonsense. The secret accumulation of knowledge -- a gradual spread of enlightenment -- ultimately a proletarian rebellion -- the overthrow of the Party. You foresaw yourself that that was what it would say. It is all nonsense” (Page 300). Why would O'brien state that the book is nonsense when he told my client to read the book that in itself is

Open Document