Analysis Of Colin Kaernick's Freedom Of Speech

To have multiple ways in expressing your thoughts, it can conclude in many opposing individuals who don’t necessarily agree. In the situation with Colin Kaepernick, Kaepernick was caught in between a situation as to whether his way of expressing his freedom of speech was right or wrong in the name of being an American. Kaepernick had kneeled down during the national anthem and some people were offended and others praised his acts. When that had occurred, two separate authors had written an article in response of Kaepernick’s act-- one agreeing with it and the other disagreeing. In E.R Shipp’s article, she goes about writing the reasons- as to why Kaepernick should be proud of what he did, and how she is one of the individuals to agree with

To begin, in Shipp’s article, she informs the readers in the situation happening with Kaepernick and gives an emotional sense--pathos-- to persuade the readers that his action was an acceptable act of expressing his thoughts. While in Kushma’s article, his way of arguing using pathos is far less present and effective. Both authors use a sense of emotion to try and persuade the audience and only one of them precedes the use effectively. In Shipp’s article Colin Kaepernick: the ultimate patriot, she states “especially those of you who have been

To contrast, Kushma’s use of logos isn 't as effective as Shipp’s because it ties in with his own opinion and stated that freedom of speech isn 't allowed. With Kushma’s argument by restating the Declaration of Independence and how America should be respected by every individual is just an opinion. In Shipp’s article, “The government cannot control our thoughts or speech or prohibits us from protesting. If the government cannot take away these rights, then certainly we cannot do that to each other”(Shipp, 2). Shipp argues that society is given the opportunity to free speech. However, if an individual is appalled by what the other does or says while expressing their freedom of speech, then by the words of the government, that individual offended is not allowed to degrade or take away the other’s opinion. It 's the truth. In Kushma 's article, he states “the symbols of America’s journey and heritage as a nation are to be respected. No, honored. Not burned, dragged through the mud or blasphemed”(Kushma, 2). When Kushma wrote that, he meant it in his sense of opinion and assumed that his opinion would fall into everybody 's opinion. His sense of logos, about being logical about what America is all about is based on his