Tuesday, February 3, 2009
January 10, 2009
Today’s Agenda:
1) Précis Grades and Comments:
Last time This Time
A 0 2
A- 1 1
B+ 1 1
B 2 2
B- 2 0
C+ 1 1
C 2 2
C- 1 1
D 1 0
F 1 0
For today, you were to have read
Reading Discussion and Activities: 78-101
Let’s begin with a journal entry:
As part of your homework over the past week, you were to read Chapter 4, which dealt with Arguments based in Reason: Logos.
You wrote a journal response to this reading in which you talked about a logos-based argument that you have encountered recently. Can anyone remember what they wrote about?
Well, now that we have thought about it a little bit, I’d like you to write another short journal entry:
Describe a logos-based argument that you might encounter on a day-to-day basis? Go into specific detail about this argument.
Group discussion of writing.
We also read and wrote about chapter 5, Thinking Rhetorically. You wrote two blog posts on this chapter. As part of these posts, we started to think about how important it is to keep in mind subjects like audience and purpose when you write.
In your journal, I would like you to reflect on the following subject:
Have you ever had the experience of having an argument directed at you, and known that you were not part of the intended audience for that argument? If so, what was that experience like for you? Describe why it was either uncomfortable or confusing.
Group Discussion
Now that we have had a chance to think about logos and rhetoric, I want us to turn our attention back to the essay we have been working with, “The Oblivious Empire.”
We have been working on understanding Pathos, Ethos and Logos in this course. In groups, I want you to identify specific claims that are made by the author, and tell me whether or not you would categorize these claims as being examples of either Logos, Ethos, Pathos. Once you have done that, I want you to explain how the author’s presentation of these examples may or may not be tailored to appeal to a certain audience or audiences.
Group Discussion:
Class Discussion
The Coming Week:
Now that you have had a chance to write, revise, and revisit your précis on “The Oblivious Empire,” it is time for you to bring this project to a close. To do this, you will be correcting your last draft, and writing a final draft.
There are a few things I need you to know before you write this draft:
MLA; In-Text Citation; How to Use a Quote; Short, direct sentences.
HOMEWORK FOR THURSDAY (5:00 pm)
SUBMIT A FINAL DRAFT OF YOUR “OBLIVIOUS EMPIRE” PRECIS TO ME VIA E-MAIL.
FOR MONDAY, 5:00
READ: 538-546
THEN:
ON PAGE 123 OF YOUR BOOK, YOU READ AN ARTICLE CALLED “PROTECTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AT HARVARD.” THIS SHORT ESSAY DEALS WITH A FASCINATING AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RESPOND TO THIS WRITING BY EITHER AFFIRMING OR CHALLENGING THE AUTHOR’S THESIS. TO DO THIS, I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS HIS MAJOR CLAIMS, AND EXPLAIN WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT. (1.5 PAGES, POSTED TO THE BLOG)
Advertisement
[...] Tuesday, Feb 3 [...]
Nate Adams
2-3-09
Rhetoric and Composition II
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard
The thesis for Derek Bok’s piece is that there should be some sort of justification within the freedom of speech. Bok believes when students are hanging Confederate and Swastika flags, then there has to be some disciplinary action that follows these actions. Although people have the freedom of speech and freedom of expression, especially to hang these flags from a private and very respected school is just simply wrong, and disrespected.
I agree with the author in the sense that there needs to be a time and place to wave a flag of that stature, even if there is such thing as a right place to wave the Confederate flag, and swastika flag. I also agree with the author that “Once we start to declare certain things ‘offensive’ with all the excitement and attention that will follow, I fear that much ingenuity will be exerted trying to test the limits, much time will be expended trying to draw tenuous distinctions, and the resulting publicity will eventually attract more attention to the offensive material than would ever have occurred otherwise” (124). This supports his argument because if you mess around with laws that have been set over a long period of time, people will test their limits, and continue to do this until the laws are verified from all angles.
Another major claim by the author is that, “To disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it” (123). This also supports his argument because if something follows under the freedom of speech, then there is literally nothing people can do about it. And if the problem doesn’t follow the freedom of speech, then obviously there is something seriously wrong the dilemma. The author also argues that, “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of the communication. If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (124). I agree with this statement, because if start to forbid flags, it will only lead to other things being banned.
I agree with the author in every aspect of this writing piece. The fact that the freedom of speech has been in this country’s constitution for hundreds of years, there is a reason it has lasted this long. Although, it should be common courtesy not to do something as controversial as hanging a Confederate and Swastika flag at such a respectable university.
After starting to read Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard by Derek Bok I was little unsure about the thesis until I read further into the piece. Once I got to the fourth paragraph one sentence stuck out for me which was “The fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that is it right, proper, or civil” (123). To me this defined the thesis which to me was that the Amendment should be more defined instead of being so broad. I agree with the author’s thesis 100 percent. I personally believe that displaying a confederate flag and swastika flag are crossing the free speech line. To some people these flags could represent who they are as people but they are still displaying discrimination. The flag and symbol have two meaning there for shouldn’t be used at all.
I understand that the students were only displaying their freedom of speech, but that is not enough justification to their actions. “To disapprove of a particular form of communication, however is not enough to justify prohibiting it” (123). But on the other hand there is nothing the university can do about their actions because according to the Supreme Court they are protected by the first amendment. Sometimes its hard to define what the boundaries for freedom of speech are. “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of the communication” (124). This supports his argument by displaying that no matter what you say or do it is extremely hard to figure out boundaries when it is written in writing and displayed as an amendment.
I agree with the author on this piece with all of his opinions.
Melissa Breton
In Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard, by Derek Bok, his thesis is when should freedom of have disciplinary actions involved? In 1991, at Harvard University a couple of students put on display to the public a confederate flag and following that a third student protested with a swastika. Amendment one states freedom of speech and expression. There is always a certain time and place you can and cannot do certain things.
I agree with Bok. Bok states “Rules must be applied across the board and cannot be enforced selectively to prohibit certain kinds of messages but not others” (124). He isn’t trying to take sides on the entire situation. He is trying to be more neutral. He doesn’t like the actions of the students, but does not believe we should ban the actions just because we disagree with them. If you change the Amendment for one group of people others are going to try to have laws changed to fit their needs. What’s the point of the constitution if it is altered.
Bok also states “ If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (124). In the next paragraph he says “The worst offenders will simply find other ways to irritate and insult” (124). I believe all of this. The whole situation with the flags shouldn’t of taken place in the general public. If we say you can not show flags in public, it then will lead too not being able to voice you opinion in public. If this was to happen the people would find others ways that could be more harmful to others then just words and flags.
Everyone in America does have freedom of speech, it has been in the constitution for hundreds of years. Just because some may display things others might not agree with, doesn’t mean that disciplinary actions need to take place. A thing I always say is “ if you don’t like it don’t pay attention to it.” If you don’t like something in particular like what happened at Harvard University, don’t get involved with it and don’t pay attention too it. There will never be a day where everyone in America will be satisfied with the way things work, but one step to progress is seeing everyone’s views.
Julie R
2.9.09
Rhetoric and Composition
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard
The article Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard by Derek Bok talks about whether or not there should be laws against the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that Americans have the right to speak freely. Bok brings up a good point that sometimes the world is not civil or proper, gestures and phrases offend people. The problem is that the First Amendment is vague and therefore technically people can not break any laws. It is very interesting to me that when one side hung up a flag the people who were offended did the same thing right back. Does this make it right? Should the First Amendment have guide lines? Or should there be punishments and rules for the people who are uncivil and disrespectful?
I do not agree that there should be laws written along with the First Amendment. It is a risk that an individual takes when they live in America, we all have the right to speak freely about any subject we want to. As a society we all learn values and respect. This helps us to live our lives and how we will live our First Amendment. In the article the fact that once a confederate flag was hung and certain people were offended and proceeded to hang a swastika flag up in return did a number of things. First off it, if the individuals that hung up the confederate flag were looking to offend a certain group of people they were granted there wish because another flag was hung up in return. Secondly, they were practicing freedom of speech and if individuals were offended by the confederate flag they did the same thing back by hanging up the swastika flag. I guess that they have never heard that two wrongs do not make a right.
Another fact that would support not changing or tampering with The First Amendment is that individuals choose to be offended by something. It is a choice they make. It is also a choice that they make to react to it. If they did not react to it then the first victim would not given any satisfaction because they would not know that it bothered anyone. If there was anything done to change the First Amendment as said on page 124 “I suspect that no community will become humane and caring by restricting what its members can say. The worst offenders will simply find other ways to irritate and insult.” This is very true you can simply look at situations at school you are not allowed to physically abuse or fight a person but words can do just as much damage. There for changing or tampering with the First Amendment would not be successful task.
Samantha Rivers
February 7, 2009
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard
The issue at Harvard was that two students hung Confederate flags, and it upset some people who associate the flags with slavery. Another student tried to protest the flags by hanging up a swastika. Bok’s view is that the First Amendment guarantees people the freedom of speech, so even though these symbols are offensive to some there isn’t much to be said about it. He says that, “the fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil” (123). So basically even though freedom of speech is protected, not everyone is going to be happy all the time with what other people have to say or do. According to Bok, “display of swastikas or confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and cannot be forbidden simply because it offends the feelings of many members of the community” (124). For people who hang swastikas or confederate flags, it might not be a smart move because they probably won’t gain too many friends that way, but they aren’t hurting anyone.
I affirm Bok’s thesis because I know I voice my opinion about certain things that other people don’t agree with, but I don’t want my right to be taken away from me. Box says that, “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (124). He is right when he says this because if the rules of freedom of speech change then there is no telling where it will stop. If hanging a flag can get you in trouble, then also putting certain bumper stickers on your car could be deemed as offensive and that would be a little ridiculous. As long as it’s not a hate crime and no one is being physically hurt by some form of expression, it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Box backs up his argument with a lot of information, for being such a short article. Some of the quotes I have already mentioned, but one I haven’t is when he says “Interpreting the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has clearly struck the balance in favor of free speech” (124). There are some things that are worth fighting for and voicing your opinions or showing what you support. Not everyone all the time is going to agree with what you think, but it is your right to voice what you believe in.
Matt Thebarge
Freedom of Expression Article
The article “Protecting Freedom of Expression” written by Derek Bok touches on a pretty touchy but extremely debated subject. That Subject is the freedom of speech and expression. In the first couple of paragraphs, Bok talks about an incident that occurred on the Harvard campus. This incident was two students hanging confederate flags up which could have been viewed by other people around the university.
Bok’s thesis was stated as “The fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil.” (123). What Derek Bok means here is that even though sometimes it can be seen as wrong or unlawful, people are entitled under the law of the United States to be able to say or express anyway they want. I agree with Bok’s thesis. People have the right to express them selves in any way, shape or form that they so chose. Even if what someone chooses to say or do offends another person, it is that person’s right to express themselves.
On the subject of the flag, Bok states “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers.”(124). This supports his argument very well. What Bok is getting at with that sentence is if these kids are censored and not allowed to hang up the flags then people speakers speaking out against something might as well be banned too. The flags may be offensive to a lot of people but that doesn’t mean you can take the right of that person away. People can frown on what this person did with the flags and choose not to associate with him, but he did not do anything legally wrong. I am a very opinionated person and if I was not able to voice how I feel about things I would be outraged. On this matter, Bok also says “No community will become humane and caring by restricting what its members can say.”(124)
Another claim that Bok makes is that he has “difficulty understanding why a university such as Harvard should have less free speech then the surrounding society- or than a public university.”(124) Harvard is a very prestigious school but that does not make it any different for if it took place at a community college. No matter what school a person goes to they should be able to express them self.
Bok believes that even though putting up those flags can be viewed as “wrong” it is protected under law for that person to be able to express themselves however they want. I agree with him on this topic. It is our right as a citizen to be able to do this so even though those kids are frowned upon they did not technically do anything wrong.
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard
After reading this article by Derek Bok it was clear to me that the thesis was questioning when should freedom have disciplinary actions involved? This was aroused at Harvard University in 1991 when two students displayed Confederate Flags in public view on campus and another in protest displayed a swastika. The first amendment states you have freedom of speech but there are certain things that should have restrictions put on them. There is a certain time and place for every argument and sometimes displaying it in public is extremely offensive.
I do agree with Bok. He isn’t necessarily taking a side; he is just stating the obvious. He believes that the actions of the students weren’t right but doesn’t think we should ban the actions just because of what we think. According to Bok, “Once we start declaring things “offensive”, with all the excitement and attention that will follow, I fear that much time will be expended trying to draw tenuous distinctions” 124. This is true. If the government changes the law of one situation, others will try and get the laws changed for them as well. Much more chaos will arise when there is a much simpler option. Besides, the constitution was created for a reason and it shouldn’t be altered.
Bok makes another good point. He says, “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness”124. Say the government was to forbid the display of flags, and then something such as a public speaker would be banned as well. Little ways of expression would be eliminated resulting in more insulting and offensive acts to the public. This just doesn’t make sense. What makes sense is Bok’s opinion on the matter. He feels that appropriate officials should take charge and settle the conflict. He feels these people have to attain the skill of “educating and persuading, rather than resorting to ridicule or intimidation”125. Simply settling the situation between the people of that community saves a lot of drama and could result in a subtle decision.
The American constitution has been around for many, many years. This is a very important document that acts as the general “law” of the United States. Just because one person doesn’t agree with a law laid out, doesn’t mean we have to alter it. Handling situations between communities is a better solution. If you do not like something being displayed to the public then you should just ignore it. No one will ever agree with one another one hundred percent, but if people chose to see things from others point of view things will run much more smoothly.
Julie-Anne Moore
Freedom of Expression
This nation was formed upon the constution. We knew what it was like to have our freedoms stripped away. Thus, the Constitution was established in order to protect us from having these freedoms stolen again. However, we find ourselves wondering if we should let one of these freedoms, the freedom of speech, be pilfered from us. This compromise that is presented to the American people would be, as Derek Bok said in his article “Protecting Feedom of Expression at Harvard,”to protect “the feelings of others so essential to building and preserving a strong and harmonious community” (123). A careful balance must be made between the regard for others’ feelings and our constitutional rights. Like Bok, I believe that “ to disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify probihiting it” (123).
In 1991 two stidents displayed the confederate flag at Harvard, upsetting those who link the flag with slavery. In response, another student protested the display of the Confederate flag by displaying his own Nazi flag. This, of course, upset even more students and catalyzed a debate over the First Ammendment. Subsequently, Derek Bok wrote his article “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” in which he opposes the imposition of rules against such displays. The basis for this argument is , or course, that such rules would violate the First Ammendment. Though he does not condone the rash actions of the students, he also cannot condone the prohibition of such actions.
During Prohibition it seems tha the number of people who consumed alcohol either did not decrease or barely did so. People just became more devious. Likewise, if offensive behaviors were prohibited, “the worst offenders will simply find other ways to irritate and insult” (124). Bok also states that “it would be better to ignore them”…or…”to speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their action on others” (124). Otherwise, due to the varied actions of people such as these students, certain actions would be prohibited in certain areas, causing a confusing inequality of rules in our society. Consequently, though their actions are wrong, we should not stop them from their ability to do such things.
Tiffany L
2/09/09
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard
In this article, Derek Bok’s thesis is that there should be limits within freedom of speech. Bok thinks that something should be done, such as a disciplinary action to those students who hung the Confederate flag, and the swastika in public. Even though people have the freedom of speech, hanging things like the Confederate flag, and the swastika causes other students to get upset. For example some people associate the Confederate flag with slavery, which is very upsetting to a lot of people.
I agree with Bok. I think that if you want to have a confederate flag hanging in the comfort of your own home then that’s fine, but I think that it shouldn’t be used in public areas because even if you don’t mean it to, it offends a lot of people who see it hanging there. Also agree with Bok’s statement that says “In addition, once we start to declare certain things “offensive,” with all the excitement and attention that will follow, I fear that much ingenuity will be exerted trying to test the limits, much time will be expended trying to draw tenuous distinctions, and the resulting publicity will eventually attract more attention to the offensive material that would ever have occurred otherwise.” (124) This statement really supports Bok’s argument, because if limits are set, over time people will try, and push the limits to see what they can get away with. They will continue to do this, until there are laws that are put in place in every aspect possible, to prevent them.
Another big claim that Bok stated was that “Rather than prohibit such communications, with all the resulting risks, it would be better to ignore them, since students would then have little reason to create such displays and would soon abandon them.” (124) I agree with this statement, because I think that if we draw attention to those who use such displays as the Confederate flag, then they will keep doing it, because they are getting all kinds of attention for it. I think that if we pay little attention to it but not totally ignore it, then I think that people who use the displays will become bored. I think they will eventually stop making such displays, because they aren’t getting any attention from anyone about it.
I agree with everything that the author said in this piece of writing. I think that freedom of speech is a very important thing to have, and it’s been around for a long time. I’m glad that we have it, and can express ourselves freely, but I also think that we should be considerate of others, and not display things, such as Confederate flags or Swastika’s at Harvard University, because they have such a good reputation.
Karina Durrell
February 9, 2009
Rhetoric and Comp. II
The thesis in Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard by Derek Bok is to what extent freedom of speech can be used to until it is worthy of some disciplinary action. The issue that brought this to his attention took place at Harvard University, where two students hung Confederate flags in their windows, and one put a swastika up. Although the Confederate flag represents the south, to some it also represents racist beliefs, and almost everyone agrees on the inappropriateness of a swastika. Bok states that it is “Insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives to the students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes to many others” (123). However it is tough to discipline these students because “Under the Supreme Court’s rulings, as I read them, the display of Swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment” (124). Therefore the display of these flags can’t technically be forbidden by the institution.
In my opinion, these actions are worthy of some sort of punishment, but not an extreme one. Everyone in the United States of America is protected by the freedom of speech clause and that has been backed up in many important situations throughout history. Telling these students that they are suspended, or even expelled, would be like telling Martin Luther King Junior that he wouldn’t be allowed to speak, or sentencing Rosa Parks to life in prison for sitting in a bus seat. However it seems that it would be appropriate to ask these students to display their true beliefs in a more appropriate, or respectful manner. Bok, who I agree with in this situation, also makes a great point about a way that the institution could handle the situation, “Appropriate officials and faculty members should take the lead, as the Harvard House Masters have already done in this case. In talking with students, they should seek to educate and persuade, rather than resort to ridicule or intimidation, recognizing that only persuasion is likely to produce a lasting, beneficial effect. Through such effects, I believe that we act in the manner most consistent with our ideals as an educational institution and most calculated to help us create a truly understanding, supportive community.” (125)
This seems to be the best and most appropriate way to deal with the situation. In solving it this way, the institution respects the students who have hung up the flags and the students who are offended by the actions. It was a tough decision for the school and should have been carried out in a respectful way, but in the end it seems appropriate enough to discipline actions of this kind if they offend others like a Swastika or Confederate flag may do to some people.
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.
The Thesis of this article by Derek Bok is whether or not there should be other rules which justify the limits of the First Amendment. In 1991, at Harvard university two students hung confederate flags in public view, which offended some students, following this incident a third student protested by displaying a swastika flag. Although the First Amendment states that you have the freedom of speech and expression.
I’d have to say that I agree with Bok. Although he didn’t necessarily take a side in this argument, he tried to view the situation from all angles, thereby stating out what he felt was wrong and also what he felt might not be necessarily be right to everyone, just because we all have different point of views. According to Bok, “It is important to distinguish between the appropriateness of such communications and their status under the First Amendment. The fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil. ” (123). He tries to explain that even though there is a rule such as the First Amendment which is the freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean that every type of communication is necessarily right or non offensive, he also says that there needs to be a time and place for certain kinds of communication.
Bok believed that the actions of the students were not right, but however, doesn’t think that a particular form of communication should be disapproved. He states that “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (124). This statement supports his argument, because his trying to say that if this flags are banned, then very soon we start to ban offensive speakers- but just because we find them offensive doesn’t mean everyone else finds them offensive, after all this people are also trying to express themselves which is what the First Amendment is about.
Even though everyone has freedom of speech, it would be nice if we start to consider other peoples feelings sometimes, although it is a pity that no matter how much we try we can never please everybody, because there is definitely going to be someone who is unhappy/ offended about the situation.
Nick Gimbel
Harvard Free Speech…Thing
The thesis that Bok is trying to imply towards us is that even though it is wrong to hang a confederate flag, praising the slavery and mutiny, or hanging a swastika flag, proclaiming the atrocities accrued throughout that black spot in history, it is still covered by the Freedom of Speech and Expression amendment of the Bill of Rights. He states this by saying that the Freedom of Speech covers these acts and that just because they are offensive to some people it is still protected by the first amendment. Bok then says that those freedoms are to be incorporated into all agencies and organizations. In the very next paragraph he states that he does not believe that any private institutions should have less freedom of speech than any other place. (124)
I agree a little bit with the author, I believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it should be enforced rightfully so. I also have a quarrel with the fact that the Constitution is held liable by the discretion of nine Supreme Court justices to have a say and interpret what the text actually means. On the other end of the spectrum, I have a problem with enforcing such a generalized subject such as offensive flags. If you make those to be a banned item, you run the risk of people trying to push the limits, testing the waters and finding loopholes for that item. The outrage it would cause and the energy exerted to fight it would be immense. “I fear that much ingenuity will be exerted to test the limits” says Bok (124). That statement is the exact reason I would have a problem with putting a ban on offensive material such as a swastika or confederate flag. This is a main point of Bok, he puts emphasis on the fact that people are so well trained to push the limits as far as they can, maybe put a toe over and with drawing a ban on such offensive material it would only entice others to push the boundaries and fight the law.
Another main point of Bok was that ““If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers.”(124) This is another reason why caution has to be taken when dealing with a mammoth issue such as Freedom of Speech. If the precedent has been set with flags, what is stopping a person to petition to the Supreme Court to put a ban on offensive bumper stickers, tattoos or even offensive public speakers. There is just too much that could happen if the amendment is changed one way or the other
I feel that these students who put up the flags weren’t doing it to prove a point. They weren’t doing it because they believed in the acts those flags represented. No one in their right mind should praise slave masters and concentration camp leaders. No one should give admiration to those who killed millions, oppressed millions and have psychologically caused a disturbance in millions. These kids were doing it to just prove that they can. Maybe a bit of shock humor or lack thereof. The reality of it is, Freedom of Speech is correct in essentials. You should have the power to voice what you want, if you believe in it. The offensive nature or shock value of hanging a symbol of oppression and tyranny is not Freedom of Speech. These kids were trying to be smartasses and should rightfully punished for it.
p.s. Sorry for the lateness, I thought it was due tomorrow.
Rhetorical Analysis: Protecting Freedom of Speech at Harvard
In this essay the past president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, tried to defend the freedom of speech right that we as Americans possess. Like the author I believe that when racially offensive material is involved this is a very touchy subject. Harvard had an incident where some students displayed the Confederate Flag outside in public view and another student trying to protest their flag displayed a swastika. The confederate flag was upsetting to some of the students that tied it with slavery and the controversial issue of whether or not they should be allowed to display such things as offensive as that flag.
He stated in the essay, “To disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it (123).” He then goes on to say, “We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect (123-4).” This statement is what made me agree with this argument. What he says here does not say that he agrees with the fashion in which the students chose to exercise their rights, but it the fact that it is still the law. “Under the Supreme Court rulings, the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the Fist Amendment and cannot be forbidden simply because it offends the feelings of many members of the community (124).” This supports his argument because, although these actions would seem immoral to most, the law protects their right to do that. The discomfort of a people cannot take away the rights given to the offenders under the law.
He raps up his argument at the end of the essay when he states, “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult when a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of the communication (124).” The point that he is trying to make here is that determining the impoliteness of a gesture is protected under the law and cannot be acted upon just because some others are offended by it. In this situation the law clearly is what’s standing in the way of the actions of the displayers being prohibited. For now we have to ignore the ignorance of others because by law they are well within their rights.
sorry just noticed the due date plus i have been having problems at home