Kai Myers
Banned Books
Professor SoYoung Park
January 21st, 2015
What is Free Speech?
Ultimately, free speech is a way in which people have limited other people’s opinions and thoughts. “‘Free speech’ is just the name we give to verbal behavior that serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance; and we give our preferred verbal behaviors that name when we can, when we have them power to do so, because in the rhetoric of American life, the label ‘free speech’ is the one you want your favorites to wear” (Fish, 102). People have used the excuse of free speech to nullify important issues for centuries. In addition, the idea of open speech has been limited to only certain groups. Take John Milton, at the end of his Areopagitica (to the English Parliament in 1644), goes on and on about the concept of free speech, but then he turns around and says that Catholics are not allowed that favor (Fish, 103). Wow, whoops. What right does Milton have to say free speech is something he can dictate? What is the point of free speech, then? Stanley Fish is essentially saying that with all of the complications of free speech, that people feel that they are entitled to control such a concept as their way of performing free speech, seems to be the issue. The idea of free speech is utopian; however, human nature restricts it.
What do you guys think free speech consistently promotes?
Why is free speech a form of oppression?
Do you think we, in reference to the United States, really have it?
What are ways we can establish a new meaning behind free speech? Is there anyway the idea can succeed for the benefit of those less fortunate?
I agree that the idea of free speech is a utopian ideal. From personal experience, when I first learned what it was in early grade school, it was in a form of perfection. Because I am a person, and I have thoughts, opinions, my own likes and dislikes, I have a right to share them with others. But growing older, I see now that it is sometimes used as a weapon against others to gain power. (Be it political, religious, institutional, etc.) So, then it becomes a form of oppression. It is hard sometimes to see conflict through the eyes of others, and so it is hard to regulate. Now, in 2015, I believe less and less that we have total free speech. Because of the topics we have covered: Porn and Censorship, and discussing the many reasons that they don’t have complete protection of the 1st Amendment of Free Speech, that Free Speech is not really all that free. I think that our government wants the populous to think that we still have the ability to say whatever we want, whenever. (While still under the control of the government, of course.) If I have any advice to our country, and the future, I would say to look at other countries that also have free speech, but they aren’t going down the same hill that the US is. Maybe they have differences in their culture, or their society that works better.
ReplyDeleteFree speech is saddly just a banket term. While free speech does alow a person to "say" what he or she wants but that does not mean those words have an effect. to agree is to mearly change it into your own perspective. In that sense, it is opresive because your own personal veiw point that you believe is "free speech" is constently being judged . In a brod sense I believe we do have free speech in america compared to other countries because we can have our own beliefs and thoughts but at the same time we are jugded much more widly and harher because everyone is aloud to "freely" speck their mind on another person. This best thing to do is to not judge but to look at any persons free opion from a positive and logical point of view.
ReplyDeleteI believe that free speech is consistently promoting the press. Whenever theirs an issue within a society that hasn't been addressed, the medias the first to try to make the story hit headlines. Whether the story may be good or bad many bystanders or witnesses of the situation are given the chance to voice their opinion publicly. What makes free speech a form of oppression is that when the press releases an issue out to the public that's negative, the public will begin to respond offensively. This will cause the issue to be addressed more to get more response from the public. Kind of like adding fuel to the fire. For example, the Ferguson incident caused a lot of conspiracy, retaliation, and anger within the Ferguson society. The ammunition to the series of actions that took place in Ferguson was the press. They made sure that this incident was viewed by the public on a day-to-day basis, which may have caused the public to become more agitated and angry about what happened to Michael Brown.
ReplyDeleteI think that free speech promotes the laws upheld and enforced by our society/government. Although we may have the right to say whatever we want, expressing an opinion that is destructive or unconventional can cause others to be callous towards the individual expressing this belief. Freedom of speech can be oppressive in that it singles out these people and causes other like minded members of society to deny them the benefits of a community. Not to say that all unpopular opinions should be swept under the rug. In the best interests of what is right, the beliefs of the minority should be supported and brought to fruition. In this way, free speech can be a double edged sword.
ReplyDeleteObviously, as was discussed before in class, we in the United States certainly have a relative amount of free speech. Like you can go most places and say anything and you (probably) won't be beheaded for it. But it's the illusion of complete freedom of speech. Sadly, it seems we only ever use it to try to get an edge over one another. I wonder if there even can be Total freedom of speech, since everyone will always have varying opinions and will attack others for their based on their fundamental beliefs. The more I think about it, the more everything appears to be a two-way street.
ReplyDelete-George
I believe the term "free speech" is just a phrase or group of words that a group or masses of media use as a crutch or shield in order to get their opinions out in the masses for whatever reasons they have. I see it as a form of oppression because the media has specific rules they must obey, so with them having some type of oppressed released amount of information they are basically oppressing us, the masses. Because the restraint of information on the press makes it becomes a restraint of information for the masses on what is needed to and unneeded to know. And even with the release of information by the media, what have they not been releasing to the mass. Which basically puts restraints on what the mass here's and learns that deals with the politics and other parts of the world.
ReplyDelete