We are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid and Dead by Roger Rosenblatt

From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent first amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us.

Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.

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.

. Although your opinions might disagree with others, you still have the right to voice them. For example, Roger Rosenblatt indicated that when a basketball player for the Denver Nuggets, was suspended from the league because of his religious conventions that stopped him from playing in the league. It was then argued that it was not the league’s rig...

... middle of paper ...

... at its core, is not a governable process. This could be argued by the simple fact that the legal system (despite being a supposedly emotionless system), is in fact, based highly on emotion. Since emotions are not governable, neither will the concept of freedom. He also notes the inconsistencies, such as an individual writing a promotional piece for Taliban, and no one speaks up, yet when neo-Nazis attempt to walk around, suddenly an uproar begins. Rosenblatt appears less concerned with the content itself, and more annoyed by the sheer lack of consistency, as well as a crippling lack of perspective on the part of those protesting. All in all, the author’s point seems to be one of fundamental futility. That no matter how much we try to fix the system, we cannot remedy people from their emotions, which will always be the most fundamental (and perhaps only) factor.