Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discuss the right to freedom of expression
Freedom of speech in a free society
Freedom of speech in a free society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discuss the right to freedom of expression
In the article "The Indispensable Opposition" the author, Walter Lippmann acknowledges that the right of freedom of speech is expressed inadequately and full of accidental one-way ideas. He believes to find the best solution, you need to listen to other opposing views. Lippmann says that freedom of opinion is a "luxury", when people can only tolerate the opposing view they are not understanding the meaning of freedom of speech (1). He states that people should fight for other people to have the right to speak freely, but instead they ignore and don't listen to opposing views, which in return doesn’t make them gain any knowledge (1). He believes that "… to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing
that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity" (2). Lippmann observes that the base of freedom of speech is to find the truth, that there is no way we could possibly value our freedom of liberty if we continue to "tolerate" opposing views (3). In other countries without freedom, a totalitarian state, it is full of one-way broadcasting of one dictator's ideas (3). Lippmann adds that is a dictator was smart enough, they would use outside sources to report information back to him, so it would either strengthen his view or give feedback to what should be fixed (3). In a totalitarian state the opposition of a agreement is disappearing because it is controlled by men who have the same opinions and think alike (3). Lippman declares that "the right to talk may be the beginning of freedom, the necessity of listening is what makes the right more important" (4). If everyone were to talk and no one listened, then there is not a point in speaking your opinion. The freedom of speech's purpose is when a viewpoint is expressed and then can be debated about and the audience able to confront the viewpoint with their own opposing view (4). When this occurs, the freedom should be held with pride because "… when men may voice their opinions because they must examine their opinions" (6). Lippman concludes, that your supporters will always be there to push you but, your opponents will challenge you and better your views better than your friends ever could (7).
Walter Lippmann explains the ideal of democracy using a few key descriptors. He argues that the root of the mythic notion of democracy is that participatory democracy places too much faith in the hands of the public. Lippmann categorizes the mythic notion of democracy as the individuals who take advantage of the masses and their ignorance. Lippmann challenges this form in Public Opinion because an ineffective and leeching form of government will cripple the world’s economy. Lippmann focuses on the effect that stereotypes have on the public perception of the world, and says this about his stereotype of democracy.
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
According to Roger Rosenblatt “since free is the way people's minds were made to be”, freedom of speech is important to speak one's mind in a way that expresses his/her opinion even if this opinion does not seem to convince others. In my opinion, without freedom of speech, the United States would have failed to be such a powerful country as it is today.
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
To the extent that we support individual rights of expression, argument and criticism, we make claims inconsistent with a view of democracy founded on the absolute sovereignty of the people as a whole. (1982, p. 41)
“Everyone loves free expression as long as it isn't exercised” (Rosenblatt 501). In the article, We are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid, and Dead, Roger Rosenblatt argues for the people’s right to freedom of speech and expression, that is given by the U.S Constitution. Rosenblatt argues that freedom of speech is one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers developed this country. For this reason, Rosenblatt believes that we should be tolerant and accepting of other’s ideas and beliefs. Even if one does not agree with someone else, they need to be understanding and realize that people have differing opinions.
The censorship of ideas is seen, not only on American soil, but in other countries, both now and in history. In a world where governments are to be respected, to think in a contradictory manner is anything but safe. All throughout history, ideological governmen...
Although the government has no direct place in the silencing an individual’s convictions; however unpopular, no such immunity is given in the case of one’s peers. The judgement of one’s peers is almost always enough to silence any dissenting opinions. The social cost of an unpopular opinion Twain writes: “... can ruin a man in his business, it can lose him his friends, it can subject him to public insult and abuse, it can ostracize his unoffending family, and make his house a despised and unvisited solitude (Twain).” It is quite ironic that freedom of speech stresses being free, but nevertheless comes with such a great cost to the individual. With such great expense at stake, exercising one’s right to honesty always comes second to maintaining social status. Furthermore, Twain compares the costs of free speech to murder. He writes of free speech: “It ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences (Twain).” Twain rather amusingly juxtaposes the crimes of murder and free speech. The two actions are in theory completely unalike, the former to be punished and the latter to be defended. Yet Twain instead comes to the conclusion that they are actually both privileged and are punished in the same way. Both when committed, immediately condemn an
From the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century major historical events such as the Industrial revolution had occurred. During this period of time Europe was switching into an economy that is focused mostly in the industrial field. From this emerged two social-economic classes, the rich bourgeoisie and the poor proletariats. Furthermore tension brewed from the two groups since the bourgeoisie source of wealth was from the exploitation of the proletariats. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ book The Communist Manifesto responded to the situation and created a vision of an equal communist society. The Communist Manifesto was defined by the abolishment of the bourgeois sovereign rule that followed to a revolution against capitalism
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
In Walter Lippmann's “The Indispensable Opposition,” Lippmann argues that the freedoms we have fought to give ourselves regarding speech and opinion only exist because multiple perspectives permit the development of your own views. In order to counter those who believe that everyone deserves these freedoms, Lippmann upholds a demeaning tone, and instead indicates how the reader’s freedoms could be deprived of if those rights weren’t liberally distributed.
Simon Wiesenthal life and legends were extraordinary, he has expired people in many ways and was an iconic figure in modern Jewish history. Szyman Wiesenthal (was his real named and later named Simon) was born on December 31 in Buczacz, Galicia (which is now a part of Ukraine) in 1908. When Wiesenthal's father was killed in World War I, Mrs. Wiesenthal took her family to Vienna for a brief period, returning to Buczacz when she remarried. The young Wiesenthal graduated from the Humanistic Gymnasium (a high school) in 1928 and applied for admission to the Polytechnic Institute in Lvov. Turned away because of quota restrictions on Jewish students, he went instead to the Technical University
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.