Analysis Of Garrett Epps's Essay 'Free Speech Isn T Free'

In Garrett Epps's article "Free Speech Isn't Free," he discusses the United States law involving freedom of speech. One of the major points addressed is that it's not necessarily free because it has the ability to harm other people emotionally. Also, the way it's done in America isn't the only way to go about it. Epps introduces the idea of the law being in place so that people will have verbal disputes instead of immediately resorting to physical violence. Epps begins his personal argument with the insinuation he was going to evaluate both the positive and negative aspects of free speech equally. However, he ultimately uses the all of the data provided to present free speech as a trivial tool used the American public. It allows them to emotionally

abuse one another, rather than physically, as though it is more acceptable. Epps’s mentions some of the positive instances in which free speech was used, but his argument is flawed in that he abandoned the concept of being unbiased while looking at both sides of the issue by presenting the information in such a way that the negative components essentially cancel out anything good free speech has done.
Epps’s rather one sided argument first becomes apparent to the reader when observing throughout the article that he only elaborates on examples which emphasize the idea that free speech is hurtful and is misused in the United States. The only positive associations he makes to free speech are in respect to the civil rights, feminist and gay rights movements. They are mentioned in three separate instances, but when brought up he simply says those specific names and never discusses the beneficial outcomes that came from them for those groups. However, he spends entire paragraphs elaborating on the negative outcomes. For instance, Epps states “those decisions [to spread the message about a desire for social changes] paved the way for triumphs by civil rights, feminist, and gay-rights groups. But let's not pretend that nobody got hurt along the way (Epps, 2014).” He doesn’t explain any further, and immediately reverts back to the opposing side of the story. This is a big indicator of the flaw in Epps’s argument because he initially declares that the only “mature way to judge the system [of free speech] is to look at both sides of the ledger (2014).”According to the Oxford University Press, mature is defined as something fully developed, which in the context of Epps’s argument, one would rightfully assume that means a well-balanced evaluation of both of the positive and negative components (n.d.). That being said, a truly mature, unbiased argument wouldn’t present a disproportional amount of information on one side.
Next, as insinuated in his quote above, the flaw in Epps’s argument is further unraveled as he manipulates the brief positive examples in such a way that they give support to the idea that free speech is hurtful.

When analyzing more closely, it becomes obvious that the elaborations made on the civil rights, feminist and gay rights movements, are designed to express that those involved suffered greatly for the cause. For example, Epps states that “the price for our freedom—a price in genuine pain and intimidation—was paid… by civil-rights and women's-rights advocates subjected to vile abuse in public and private, and by gay men and lesbians who endured decades of deafening homophobic propaganda before the… public opinion turned (2014).” Epps fails, however, to include the even the slightest details of what those movements accomplished. In the case of the civil rights movement, for instance, that meant equal citizenship rights to white Americans for African Americans, which is nothing to bat an eye at (Virginia Historical Society, n.d.). Through doing this the argument becomes even more biased because it discredits the fact that the outcomes had long-lasting positive

impacts.
Additionally, in an effort to continue to discredit the validity free speech, Epps compares it to the right to smoke.

It’s widely known that it isn’t recommended to start smoking because it’s addictive, harmful for the human body and is very costly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is the leading cause of death in the United States, impacting those who smoke personally and as well as those who receive it second hand, and costs the country “$300 billion a year, including nearly $170 billion in direct medical care for adults and $156 billion in lost productivity (2015).” Also, according to Samantha Graff, an author representing the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, smoking isn’t a constitutional right and is prohibited many public, work and government establishments (2008). That being the case, the comparison strongly insinuates that using free speech is a poor choice and shouldn’t be protected in the bill of rights, which gives further bias to the negative side of his

argument.
Lastly, Epps presents free speech advocates as being ignorant, uncivilized and vulgar right from the get-go. This is evident in his opening paragraph when he states that the millions of American supporters “firmly believe that… [the United States is] the only country to have free speech, and that anyone who even questions free speech had damn well better shut the #$%& up (Epps, 2014).” The intended meaning of the special characters is rather obvious, and screams to the reader that not even he would be bad-mouthed enough to say the real word. Therefore, before even presenting the idea that he would be “mature” in his evaluation of freedom of speech, Epps introduces a strong bias to the opposing side of the argument. This is a blatant attempt to make it appear as though anything he would say in support of it after that point couldn’t possibly override this negative association. That being said, a mature, well balanced argument wouldn’t have been able to include such a statement and remain valid in its purpose.
Epps’s argument is inherently flawed because he fails to remain unbiased when evaluating the right to freedom of speech and how it has been utilized throughout American history. After interpreting his opinion and the information used to support it, the reader is left to question whether it’s the really the good thing that they were always taught to believe. Some may argue that the cons often override the pros that free speech is capable of. Even though it is true that it can be misused in certain contexts, that argument can’t justify Americans losing the ability to have their voice heard when it’s important. A workable imaginary line can’t realistically be drawn; a person either has the right or they don’t. In the event that the government should ever have control over citizen’s speech, the real question is whether the public’s best interest will always be at heart.

References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Cigarette Smoking in the
United States. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAuqC2BRDVxMSnpa-mhZoBEiQAFta8wdkMIxgKBmzcypY72AE71KRvz7LK_JUS4e_2jd3Q26MaAuSO8P8HAQ
Epps, G. (2014). Free Speech Isn't Free. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/
Graff, S. K. (2008). There is No Constitutional Right to Smoke: 2008. Retrieved February 26,
2016, from http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-constitution-2008.pdf
Oxford University Press (n.d.). Mature. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/mature
Virginia Historical Society. (n.d.). The Legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. Retrieved
February19, 2016, from http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/civil-rights-movement-virginia/legacy-civil