The Paradox of Free SpeechEssay Preview: The Paradox of Free SpeechReport this essayThe Paradox of Free SpeechAs American people, we know that we are entitled to certain rights according to the constitution; one of which is freedom of speech. In Civility and Its Discontents, Leslie Epstein explores the limits and contradictions of this much cherished right when considering whether he would expel a student who wrote racial slurs in the dorm rooms of a University if it was up to him. He discusses this situation and topics that stem from it in an analytical yet somewhat emotionally involved tone and makes the reader reflect on the wide range of information presented about the issues of political correctness, freedom of speech, expulsion, and racism.
Racist, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay slurs are both accepted in American English as a form of expression and have been associated with the concept of racism.
A History of the First Amendment’s Rights of Speech, Inequality for Women, Anti-Transviolence, and Anti-Feminism
Bryan J. Smith, ed., Handbook of American Religious Freedom, New York: Doubleday.
While most scholars, commentators and activists agree that “free speech for everybody” has grown ever more pervasive, others, including American Atheists, have been less concerned with promoting religion and more concerned with protecting religious liberty.
This debate has developed from religious liberty advocates to a civil rights, educational, health and environmental group that has called on both for broader and broader protections of religious freedom.
The purpose of this book is twofold: first, to make a case for the importance of secular, secular, constitutional rights, and foremost to the ability of the First Amendment to protect religious freedom.
Second, to provide an accessible reading for all people who seek to find peace or freedom from this world, free speech, or at least civil rights, should mean that people and groups with special qualifications must accept and uphold what they believe, respect the fundamental liberties of others, and think for themselves.
The “What Can We Do to Move Forward on Religious Freedom” book is an essential book for Christians and for others striving to realize the right to engage in this free, pluralistic, democratic, and open society.
Our first book was “What Can We Do to Move Forward on Religious Freedom”? The idea behind this book is to make our experience with the First Amendment clear to all who wish to consider the Constitution and to recognize that it has a role to play in how we manage our lives and how we treat others. As with our first book, this work is a first draft and not a final product. Therefore, we encourage you to be prepared to read chapters for yourself and to write your own opinions and actions over the course of the whole book (without further revisions!).
The book is intended for all who would like to address their own issues in ways that would be productive and not harmful to them.
For this reason, The Progressive Heritage Program and other organizations have developed the “What Could We Do to Move Forward on Religious Freedom?” Book to this end.
All authors should sign a copy. Please send us a copy of this address, which is attached below and also a PDF that you will use as a reference book, and contact us if you wish to use this book or its contents in your own legal briefs.
Please give us a copy of this email address:
[email protected]
PREFACE
How do you think the First Amendment should apply to the First Amendment in practice?
In our legal research we have discovered that the First Amendment cannot be applied to the First Amendment in cases when
In the beginning of the essay, Epstein presents the “moral puzzle” (459) which he has set for himself. Should he expel a student who has written racial slurs on the walls of a dorm hallway? When first considering the issue, most people would have no qualms choosing the option of expulsion. But as the essay progresses, readers are introduced to the many factors which keeps the author from making a rash decision that could affect a students life in a large way, which in turn makes the reader think about and understand how the not expel” option can be supported. Epstein expresses some strong emotions when thinking about his first reaction to the situation. Statements like “I expect my reactions would be something like this: rage…zeal for reformation…” and “my emotions boil at the prospect of having to share a campus with such bad apples in it” (459)
leave the reader to believe that he is most definitely going to expel the student. However, then he brings up points about how he has a concern, as a writer, for “minimizing censorship in American life,” how he doesnt want to seem hypocritical if he expels the student since he himself was expelled twice when he was in school for exercising his right to free speech. He also quotes one black Yale student who stated that “Its much better for people of color to know what people think of us” (462). Pieces of evidence like the latter would lead us to believe that Epstein will not expel the student. This “back and forth” feeling of the essay is present non-stop, and it keeps the reader interested in the outcome of the discussion as well as the journey towards the outcome, filled with thought-provoking investigation.
I found it funny that while reading the first page or so of Epsteins essay, I was very curious–perhaps you could even say fixated–about which outcome he was going to choose. His stance on the subject is very complex, which is evident in the whole essay. I noticed that by the time you get to the end, you really dont care very much about the fact that Epstein ultimately decided he would expel the student, because in comparison to the broad span of intellectual and heated discussion topics brought forth in Epsteins essay, the initial question of to expel or not to expel” (459) seems somewhat trivial.
Now take a moment to consider how many people in America would openly declare dislike for freedom of speech. Not many, if not none. Of course freedom of speech is something to be fond of since it enables us with the ability to say whatever we want and having our own opinions without worrying about it. However, everything has limits, and we havent set limits for this idea, which leads to confusion and controversy. The idea of freedom of speech is often stretched and distorted beyond to be used as an excuse, for example in hurled racial slurs. No matter how racist or hurtful a comment, who ever declared the said comment can play the “I have a right to say whatever I want” or “everyone is entitled to