Abstract This paper compares and contrasts a speech by Frederick Douglass and an article by George Orwell. These pieces of writing are presented through a point-by-point comparison and the author gives the reader a chance to see the likenesses and similarities in both ideas and writing styles.
From the Paper "Throughout the years, historians and authors alike have used their skills to persuade the audience of certain truths as they see them. If we look back in history, we will find that different people often produced similar schools of thought at different times for different reasons. One of the most classic examples of this occurrence would be the Freedman Speech, by Frederick Douglass and the Reflections on Gandhi, by George Orwell. Each of these works reflect similar styles of writing, as well as similar points of admiration as well as critical thought toward the hero in question. While Douglass and Orwell discuss heroes of their time, in President Lincoln and Gandhi, they also use the works to point out some of the fallible qualities of each man. When one holds the works side-by-side, one will see that each man admired the person he spoke of but took care to uncover their humanistic qualities as well. The comparison of the two works illustrates the fact that great leaders combine heart and head when driving society to make positive changes."
Abstract In this paper the author argues that ?hate speeches?, however abhorrent, should be protected by the U.S. Constitution, that in the interest of free speech, they should be allowed. He suggests that this is synonymous with American freedom and refers to some specific examples in order to assess whether hate speeches should be protected under the First Amendment. The author contends that as long as we are free to judge the importance of what is being said for ourselves, then words should never be banned.
From the paper:
?Words are serious, not because they have any direct effect in their own right, but because words, and the ideas they express, are what we use to weigh up our own decisions, their likely effects, and our responsibilities. Words have consequences only if we choose to give them consequences.?
Abstract This paper is an in-depth examination of how to deal with the issue of hate speech. The author looks at the Constitution, specifically at the contradictions between the 14th Amendment and the concept of freedom of speech. The author looks at some of the commentary written by Jon Locke, or Jon Stuart Mill, and even Aristotle, on the problem of freedom of speech. The author presents historical and modern-day examples of some of the conflicts that have occurred in trying to determine the parameters of freedom of speech, and hate speech in our society.
From the Paper "John Locke would probably have weighed in on the importance of limiting the speech before it gets to the point where person feels that he or she is endangered. His empirical system of philosophy emphasized the importance of the experience of the senses in pursuit of knowledge rather than intuitive speculation or deduction. Having come into this world with our minds entirely free of innate conceptions, Locke argued that all human thought is based upon experience. And it is the experiences of minorities within American culture that makes them fear the consequences of hate speech; they have learned through their experiences in the world that bigoted speech easily and often turns into bigoted action (Dunn 48). Another essential part of Locke's philosophy was that all persons are born equal, which would no doubt incline him to value the equal protection of each person under the rule of law (Dunn 121)."
Abstract This paper examines the right to freedom of speech and discusses the threats to its protection throughout the history. The paper maintains that regardless of the source of threat -- whether academic, police or corporate -- the freedom of speech is essential to an open society and must be protected, regardless of public opinion. The paper cites several recent examples of such controversial speech, including by Professor Ward Churchill, who compared the victims of 9/11 to cogs in Hitler's war machine.
From the Paper "The guarantee of free speech is both a sign of an open society and a protection that distinguishes the United States from other, less open societies that offer their citizens no such protections. Freedoms guaranteed United States citizens based on the First Amendment include freedoms of "speech; press; religion, assembly and petition" ("About the First Amendment"). Further, "Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change" ("About the First Amendment"). Freedom of speech also protects movies, videos, song lyrics, advertisements, and other communications that may not be to everyone's taste. The alternative to freedom of speech is government censorship. As Wikipedia points out, however ("Freedom of Speech"): "The philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed that people may be hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government retribution but because of social pressures." That is, when an individual states an opinion that is not mainstream, or is considered unpopular, he or she might be subjected to peer pressure to change or retract the opinion; community rejection; disdain or ostracism, or even threatening or violent reactions from others. As Tocqueville correctly predicted, the fear of such reaction to the exercise of free speech, on the part of many individuals, even with the free speech protections granted by the U.S. Constitution, often functions as a sort of self censorship."
Tags: first, amendment, constitution, speech, protection, fire, in, a, crowded, theater, civil, liberties
Abstract This report discusses free speech, the constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the interpretation of the laws. The issue of the interpretation by the Supreme Court is discussed, to include recent cases regarding free speech. The paper further discusses the history of free speech, and broaches on the topic of the issues, controversies, and concepts that will decide the future of free speech in the country.
From the Paper "Freedom of speech in the United States has been a right that most Americans have clung to since the inception of the Constitution in 1787 ("Constitution"). John Paul Stevens discusses the fact that throughout history people have been persecuted for voicing their opinions about any number of concerns in their lives, and that they have been unjustly executed for allowing their voices to be heard (1293). Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, and the Proctor family of Salem, Massachusetts were all victims of the world's intolerance of opinion. The Framers of the Constitutions believed that there were rights that each individual was entitled to, and that in the United States those rights had to be protected at all costs."
Abstract This paper discusses five cases which deal with freedom of speech and expression in public schools. The paper looks at how the First Amendment is limited in one aspect in the school setting and discusses several cases where the courts placed limits on freedom of speech and expression in school.
From the Paper "The topic I have chosen is whether or not a school has the right to prohibit certain speech and expression which although lawful, the school does not approve of from being disseminated on school grounds. I have chosen this topic because it is important for those in the school system to understand what the right to free speech in the school environments entails. Furthermore, it is important for school students to understand the extent of their First Amendment rights in a school setting to avoid possible problems. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that every citizen shall have the right of freedom of speech and expression."
Abstract This paper explains that Malcolm X was one of the most awe-inspiring orators of the twentieth century. Using his oratory skills, Malcolm X gave a speech called "Prospects for Freedom in 1965", with the goal of educating the Caucasian audience about the plight of the Afro-American while serving as an almost rallying-cry to prepare his fellow Afro-American brothers and sisters for the harsh realities of the upcoming year. The paper describes the plethora of rhetorical devices used by Malcolm X in this speech, such as rhetorical questions, repetitions, colloquialistic expressions, logos, pathos and ethos.
From the Paper "Yet another example of Malcolm's desire to effectively communicate with his audience is in the form of his use of repetition, which can be defined as "the repeated use of the same word or word pattern".("Repetition") Throughout the entire discourse, many themes, motifs and words reappear so that he can stress and emphasize the certain themes and ideas. For example, within the introductory paragraphs, Malcolm constantly expresses "it's my [his] third time here" (X 147). This is an attempt to force the fact that he is a competent and experienced speaker."
Tags: rallying-cry repetition, colloquialistic expressions, rhetorical questions, human
Abstract In "On Liberty," Mill proves to be a staunch supporter of free speech. The writer begins the paper by analyzing his views. Using his own views as a basis, the paper argues that he would support banning racist speech on campus. It points to the restrictions Mill is willing to place on free speech as proof, mainly the harm clause.
From the Paper "In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that no person or group of people, including the government, is ever justified in silencing someone's opinion. He begins by arguing that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are inseparable. After all, how meaningful is freedom of thought without freedom of speech? What good does it do us to be allowed freedom of thought while being denied the expression of that thought? Mill points out that by curbing freedom of speech, government would be taking something extremely important away from us. The government would be restricting not only our freedom of speech, but also our right to express our thoughts, and that's much more drastic."
Tags: free, freedom, john, liberty, mill, speech, stuart
Abstract This paper takes a look at the concept of freedom of speech and the history of free speech and censorship in the USA. According to this paper, the American public also need to understand that if there is not equal protection for the rights of everyone then society will never truly be free. This paper questions that perhaps the answer exists in learning from a multitude of voices about both the subjects that inspire us and the subjects that remind us of the type of people that Americans will never want to be.
From the Paper "America is considered the freest society in the world. Here people are free to make choices about their lives that deal with education, shelter, political affiliations, and government support. This free choice often leads Americans to believe that they have the largest voice of any citizenry, and a constitution that will support their ability to be heard. Yet, within the country there are issues of free speech and censorship that continue to be debated in the judicial system, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, although the country has made great strides in defining what is considered free speech and what is illegal censorship throughout the decades, it is apparent that this concern will always have a new focus of consideration because American citizens will never stop fighting for their freedoms."
This paper examines the "New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan" Supreme Court case that argued the liability of the press and questioned the right to freedomspeech.
Abstract The writer of this paper analyzes the 1964 Supreme Court case of the "New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan" in which the respondent, an elected official, brought suit against the paper alleging that he had been libeled in the petitioner's newspaper. This paper argues whether the rule of liability as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct abridges abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments.
From the Paper "If the court permits The Local Newspaper to use NY Times vs Sullivan as a precedent in this case, it would create another precedent allowing the Press to print anything they wanted whether it was true or not, whether or not they had reliable sources. Today because of NY Times vs Sullivan, the press is permitted to print anything about the public acts of a public official. Sullivan does not permit the press to print libelous falsehoods about private lives of public individuals. Private individuals are protected fully by the 1st and 14th Amendments."
Abstract The computer age has produced renewed debate pertaining to questions of freedom and speech, as opposed to censorship. This discussion ventures to explain how the advent of the so-called Information Age does not really alter the dynamics of a longstanding question, or rather a set of questions, that have been basic to political theory among other of the social sciences. Two articles selected from The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, on radically different topics, help to reveal certain approaches to all questions of communications, the media, and the 'post-modern' age, within academic research. These materials are examined en route to sections that focus directly on issues of the internet and freedom of expression.
Abstract A paper discussing the issue of hate speech and its relation to the 1st and 14th Amendments. The topic of freedom of speech vs. right to equality and the impact of these on hate speech is discussed.
Abstract This paper explains that, because the laws of all three nations-the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada-are based on the same underlying body of law, loosely described as English jurisprudence-the right to freedom of speech/expression in all three is quite similar. This paper compares the three country's laws and regulations regarding this issue.
From the Paper "A flap in town council demonstrates the principle of free speech as practiced in the U.K. As the result of an insult flung about in the council chambers, one of the government/political people attending said something to a reporter "no gentleman would say." The commentator on the incident noted that both politicians and journalists can play rough, and, to the public mind, it is a non-starter as an issue. However, a piece of legislation was in place that was causing some discussion concerning the insulter's right to make the insult. "The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England) Order 200." It contains a section demanding that members of city councils must "treat others with respect." This makes politeness mandatory, which also, then, limits how one may express one's self, at least if one is a council member in Great Britain. Moreover, the demand to express thoughts only in a polite manner extends to 'others' and not just voters or officials...anyone and everyone, obviously at all times. This law only applies to council members: One assumes that, except where specifically codified into law, other citizens of the U.K. can be verbally disrespectful if they wish."
An analysis of the differences in the laws of free speech for individuals versus businesses, as presented in the case of a law suit filed against Nike Inc.
Abstract This paper discusses commercial versus non-commercial free speech. The paper presents a case study involving a suit filed against Nike, Inc., claiming that Nike violated state laws which prohibited false advertising and unfair competition when the corporation made false statements about the employment of overseas workers in sweatshops, via press releases. The paper discusses all the issues related to free speech for individuals versus businesses.
Table of Contents:
Part One - Kasky v. Nike, Inc et al
Part Two
Commercial Free Speech Workplace Privacy Issues
Constitutional Issues-Product Liability
Religious Liberty and the Free Exercise Clause
From the Paper "Recent years have seen high profile product liability issues that place the rights of the individual to be safe in their person against the rights of businesses to pursue profits through the offering of a product. In the recent Vioxx liability cases, the argument has been made that the manufacturer of these products should be brought to justice because the product has allegedly brought much harm to those who bought the product in the hopes of improving their quality of life. On the other hand, the manufacturer has an argument in that the product was thought to be safe and was launched to the public in the hopes of helping them."
Abstract This paper discusses the period covered in the primary documentation associated with Chapter 19 of Eric Foner's "Voices of Freedom", as a period of transition. It states that the era surrounding World War I demonstrates a time when the definitions of intrinsic values were being challenged and reassessed almost on a constant basis. From 1916-1920 America was involved in reformulating what values it was said to hold dear and the official take on what those values mean was often one that did not meet with everyone's approval. From President Wilson's speech admonishing American business for being too isolationist and short sited in international dealings to the final work in which Fitch expresses the context of regional labor strikes, there is a sense of a collective demand for change as well as a reassertion of the cries for freedom and even a reevaluation of the very definitions of freedom and democracy. Furthermore, the author asserts that each of these messages, from texts and transcripts that were written and felt between 1916 and 1920, is a timely message about the modern world.
From the Paper "Realizing with new zest and fear of democracy not being the underpinning of this peaceful conquest that Wilson speaks of a law is passed that bans free speech, when such speech could be seen as contrary to the cause of WWI and democracy, Congress and Wilson pass the Espionage act of 1917, creating yet another reason for protest, of the forgetting of the derisive nature of the past. Debs, in his speech could be talking about the Patriot Act, allowing government to overstep its constitutional boundaries, once again, some would say. Debs admonishes congress and the officials overseeing his trial, again naming names. (94-98) Bourne discusses disenfranchisement, as it is associated with old versus new immigrants and rightfully asks the do-gooders trying to Americanize immigrants to remember that they were also once immigrants who were given credit for establishing freedom and now taking it away by forcing their own brand of Americanism on the new comers."
Tags: values america era freedom democracy, modern world
