Information Lit

Information Lit

• 1.
  Adaira Studivon FYS Harold Blanco January29, 2015 Freedom of Speech, a Limitless Debate. The risks of free speech have become more prevalent and worsening in severity for the past few years. In the United States you don’t hear about people, companies, or organizations getting in real trouble for their comments. For example, when Chick-fil-a, as a company, expressed their disagreement with gay marriage, many liberals were in an uproar. However, due to the first amendment of the constitution, the government couldn’t allow the company to be in any real trouble over their statement. However, sadly, in other parts of the world, that isn’t the case. After reading Free Speech at Risk by Alan Greenblatt, I was able to better understand and truly realize, the United States doesn’t have true freedom of speech. Also, I found out about the detrimental situations going on in other countries due to their government attempting and succeeding to limit their freedom of speech. Greenblatt beings his article by explaining and showing the amount of journalistic freedom around the world. Certain places in Europe have the most freedom, followed by Canada and America, with the Middle East and Asia falling dead last. “Free-speech laws traditionally have been about the protection of unpopular and provocative expression” (Greenblatt). This comment is true for every country with limits to free expression. In America it proves true
• 2.
  because unpopular expressioncan be torn apart at any given moment. The statement is also proven true in the Middle East. There is a very strong restriction to freedom of speech, due to the strong belief in their religion. The Middle East could very well need these laws to protect common belief and value. Greenblatt brings up several ideas like this one, he brings up topics such as “Should religious sensibilities be allowed to limit free expression” and “Should the Unites States promote free speech abroad”. Within these subtopics, he quotes “There is no free speech without the ability to offend religious and cultural sensibilities” (Malik). Greenblatt manages to intelligently discuss both sides of every subtopic he brings up. Which makes him a very reliable and intelligent source. There are multiple benefits that could occur from regulating free speech. One positive thing would be any false information that comes out into the public couldn’t potentially turn into a riot due to lies. For example, if free speech were completely free, and the media, whether it’s a reliable news source or a delinquent with internet access, could twist any possible news story into something completely fictional (Johnson). If false information over a strong topic were to become widespread, it could cause riots. Not just communal riots, but riots even at the governmental level. With the ability for sources to say and add whatever they possibly wanted into the story could cause disarray nationwide because no one would know what the truth is, and what isn’t. With true regulation of what is said, we could avoid many conflicts from actually occurring. However, there are also several benefits that could come out of not monitoring free speech. Recently, when the government has attempted to regulate and stop particular things from being said, certain people tend to uproar. These certain people could be anyone involved with the topic of discussion which was being regulated, people who are against the government
• 3.
  and their attemptto “violate their first amendment rights”, or even a bystander who was bored and wanted something to do. When people rally together in large numbers, for any cause, it is potentially dangerous for the community, the people involved, and even the government itself (Bennett). Large groups that are seriously angry, and want to fight for a cause they care desperately about, tend to fight longer and harder than many other people. If people are passionate about upregulating free speech, and an issue like this occurs, I don’t know what would stop them from fighting until their last breath to make a change. Now, there is one main reason I believe the freedom of speech and press should be limitless. It is our first amendment right as citizens of the United States. The freedom of speech is something America was founded upon, and constantly attempts to take pride in when competing with other countries to see ‘who is better’. As America we cannot take pride in something if it’s taken away from us. We are all different people, we look different, act different, and think differently. Why would it be fair to limit to what extent humans could have the potential to be different? Without individuality and the ability to be our own person, America would have the potential to turn into a dictatorship (Bennett). If we just keep working together to make America the freest place it has the potential to be, I believe the country would do a lot better. A second thought that backs up my argument for no restrictions of free speech would be, the enforcers’ of any law would have a lot more free time on their hands. If certain restrictions became illegal, police would spend a lot of their time looking at petty posts on the internet instead of going out and actually catching murders.
• 4.
  With all ofthese reasons and all of these thoughts kept in mind. It is very clear to see why America should have a completely free policy regarding speech and press freedom. If the government were to set such restricting laws into place, America would nearly cave in on itself. The public would disagree and more than likely fight back with any decisions the government would make. It is clearly much safer, and more intelligent to just wipe away all possible restrictions on any form of expression.
• 5.
  Works Cited Bennett, ThomasD. C. "Privacy, Free Speech And Ruthlessness: The Australian Law Reform Commission's Report, Serious Invasions Of Privacy In The Digital Era." Journal Of Media Law 6.2 (2014): 193-205. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. "Denying Genocide Or Denying Free Speech? A Case Study Of The Application Of Rwanda's Genocide Denial Laws." Journal Of International Human Rights 12.2 (2014): 191-213. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015 Greenblatt, Alan. "Free Speech at Risk." CQ Researcher 26 Apr. 2013: 377-400. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.Jansen, Yakaré-Oulé (Nani). .JOHNSON, ERIC M. "Examining Blasphemy: International Law, National Security And The U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Free Speech." Air Force Law Review 71.(2014): 25-67. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.