Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of freedom of speech
Positive impacts of freedom of speech
The internet and free speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In today’s time, people take offense to everything. This can be seen every day in the media; thousands of people protest in cities across the nation on a daily basis for so called “social injustices” and offensive remarks. Conor Friedersdorf explores an example of this in his article, “The New Intolerance of Student Activism.” Friedersdorf describes the explosion of protest on Yale University’s campus after a staff member sent an email out to the student body that offended numerous students. Friedersdorf is not alone; it seems there in a new protest to report every day. In a nation that is supposedly becoming more accepting, it seems it has become more intolerant. Student activism on college campuses has drastically increased over the past …show more content…
Seemingly inoffensive posts can easily become the center for a huge uproar in a matter of minutes. Jon Ronson explores this topic in his article “How One Stupid Tweet Ruined Justine Sacco’s Life.” His paper is yet another example of the hypersensitivity of the nation. What was meant to be a simple joke sparked a huge protest for white privilege over social media. His article lists several other examples of such posts that sparked similar disputes, all over seemingly innocent comments. Both Ronson and Friedersdorf illustrate the downward trend on acceptance and forgiveness in America today. The land of freedom and acceptance has become less tolerant and unforgiving of unintentionally offensive posts and actions. In today’s society, a simple email or social media post can spark an uprising against the offender, and such an uproar can ruin someone’s life. Conor Friedersdorf explores this in his article “The New Intolerance of Student Activism.” He claims that the new age of activism is a result of “the flawed ideas that they’ve absorbed.” As the country continues of become “more accepting,” one can only wonder if we will become less
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
Fridman pulls examples from across the educational spectrum, from elementary school up through college. This variety of examples emphasizes the widespread and deeply engrained prejudice expressed throughout the United states. The sheer size of his example highlights the enormity of the issue. If this ostracization occurred only in the lower academic level it would not be considered an issue. Fridman’s variety of examples discourages argument that this could be an isolated phenomenon.
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
Charles R. Lawrence intended audience in his article “On Racist Speech” is college students and universities. His sense of tone is forthcoming. Lawerence word choice sets the tone by using the words conspicuous,dissenter, and bigot. The article gives examples of how universities do not protect minority college students. Lawrence states that universities should protect their students He also gives an example of how universities have tried to have rules to ban racist speech yet they have proven ineffective in stopping racial slurs. The regulations have not stopped the verbal brutality yet it has stopped the occurrences of physical fights. He mentions how students do not have any need to be hurt verbally.
In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,
The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, is an article published by the Atlantic Journal about the negative effects trigger warnings and microaggressions have on students in college. Trigger warnings are disclaimers about any potential emotional response from a class or its material. (44) Microaggressions are words or actions that have no sinister intentions, but people take as such. (44) Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (47) As the leader of the foundation, Greg Lukianoff has witnessed and fought many legal occasions of trigger warnings and microaggressions resulting in the masking of freedom of speech. Coauthor Jonathan Haidt is a professor at New
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
Someone’s mistakes can easily be debuted online, making the levels of public shame go beyond its limits. In Source C, “Is the Internet a Mob without Consequence?”, there is an article about an adult who got a massive amount of hate for an inappropriate tweet. In the document, the adult named Ms. Sacco received intense reactions and consequences: “Yet as soon as it was clear that she had made similar comments in the past, the Internet turned into a voracious and vengeful mob. Ms. Sacco was tried and judged guilty in a public square of millions and soon attacked in a way that seemed worse than her original statement. Within hours, people threatened to rape, shoot, kill, and torture her.” (Bilton 9-13). With the negative feedback, the lady realized her tweet was an awful mistake; however, when dealing with the internet, there is no “deleting” mistakes. Also, being shamed to the extent of having millions watch her in a public square and then threaten to do so many wrong actions like killing is just brutality wrong. The responses following the tweet are in fact far more disgusting than the single tweet posted which started the entire breakout. Furthermore, with the rise of social media, Monica Lewinsky also had her fair share in being harassed and humiliated online. Monica shares with the audience, “But the attention and judgement that I received, not the
Free speech. Affirmative action. Political correctness. These three things all have at least one key thing common and that one thing can be summed up as this: To you, the reader; to me, the writer; and to anyone and everyone you talk to about those three things, they will have a different meaning with a different story with a different reason for them being defined that way. The discussion cannot end simply with our own stories, but begin with those stories and transcend into something new with being exposed to different ideas and viewpoints that may or may not match our own. D’souza, Taylor, Robbins and all other authors mentioned in this piece can help everyone to grow in their personal definitions of free speech, affirmative action and political correctness.
David Bernstein is to be congratulated on so clearly, vividly, analytically and accurately showing seriousness of these new threats to free speech and civil liberties in the US. The Cato Institute also deserves credit for publishing the book since in Bernstein’s words ‘authors who take politically incorrect positions . . . face a particularly difficult time finding publishers among leading trade presses’ (p. ix). Cato at least is still the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Banks, G. (2011, July 18). As social media expand, rulings evolve for students and teachers expressing freedom of speech. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.post-gazette.com/home/2011/07/18/As-social-media-expand-rulings-evolve-for-students-and-teachers-expressing-freedom-of-speech/stories/201107180190#ixzz30tCKfc
Rankin, Aidan. “The repressive openness of political correctness.” Contemporary Review 282.1644 (2003): 33+. Literature resource Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
When freedom of speech is confined in higher institutions, it diminishes the budding adult’s importance of this crucial right. Freedom of speech was formulated by our founding fathers to insure that all citizens had a right to speak out against whatever injustices done to them without fear of punishment. However, the institutions that are responsible for the advancement of America’s f...
Today’s young adults live a life caught between two worlds: the physical realm of human interaction and the digital universe that sits just a mouse click away. This is an age in which entire relationships are formed over online digital platforms, and a single person’s opinion can be broadcasted worldwide in a matter of milliseconds. Lately, the freedom of expression that social media has given young adults has provoked interesting behavior among users of such social media platforms as Facebook and Twitter. The term “slacktivism” was coined as far back as 1995 by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark as an expression of doing something in support of an issue or cause that requires minimal personal effort (Kain, 2012), and is now used to describe this new behavior; where everyday activists have taken their causes to the Web in search of exposure and support, and users have found a passive way to support the causes that they claim to believe in. Every day, hundreds of new slacktivist-oriented pages and videos sprout up across Facebook and Twitter, and slacktivist supporters rush to “like” the cause and pass it along to other friends in their network. This, however, is not the only form of slacktivism. It is also evidenced in the statuses of the numerous members of the Facebook and Twitter community. The role of the “status update” and the “tweet” has evolved from reporting a person’s physical activities, into a platform for launching whatever propaganda a user deems worthy of sharing with his or her social media community. It would seem that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are providing users with a false sense of ego, and that this – in turn – has contributed to the monumental rise of slacktivism and consequential degradat...