Richard Phelps Response to There's No Such Thing as Free Speech

There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech is an examination of free speech and if speech is really free and protected by the First Amendment. One point that Fish points out early in the reading was in the way that a group of people can use the nuances of language to paint their position in a particular light. An example of this in the reading is on page 8, the term “politically correctness” has been painted as somehow having a negative connotation to it. An examination of politically correct today does not carry the weight it did in the early Nineties when multiculturalism, and feminism were seen as an intrusion into a white male dominated society. Politics does provide an excellent example of how language can be used to advance an agenda forward by both sides of a debate. Conservative and Liberal, both use language to persuade their respective audience to be aligned with their particular ideology that they are putting forward. If we take a look at the language used by both Republicans and Democrats we can understand that they are talking about the same thing but by their choice of words can paint something in an entirely different light. An example of this would be a social program like Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children also known as WIC. Funding a program like WIC provides health and nutritional resources to people in a position to not be able to fully provide for themselves, but the larger and more important purpose is to ensure a healthy and productive workforce and ensure a healthy workforce in the future. Now, how the two sides would categorize this program: Republicans would call this social program an “entitlement” program and on the reverse Democrats would paint this program as a “safety net”. With this example it becomes clear as to the rules the game that language plays in our culture and how it is used to advance ideologies. By the use of the word “entitlement” in describing a social program they paint it in a light that moves to say that people who make use of this program somehow feel that they are entitled to something. The Democrat painting the same program as a “safety net” evokes imagery of breaking a fall or catching someone from falling further down. Both are great examples in how speech and language can be used to spin or characterize something in one light or another, one positive and one negative but both referring to the same thing, that being said I do not wish to demonize or vilify one side or the other. The purpose of this example is to show how separate and different groups can speak to the same thing, but how they choose to characterize that thing with language they use to speak about it can paint that thing in a way that matches their ideological position on the subject matter.

With the reading in mind can you think of an example in which several groups are speaking about the same subject, but they way in which they choose to speak about that subject paints the same thing in a different manner?

What are the rules of the game of language, if there are rules to the game of language?

How can language be used to deceive or mislead the larger public into agreeing with something that may not be in their best interest?