COMM3631: Freedom of Speech

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...

There are three reasons for the freedom of speech: Philosophical, Individual and Political. Freedom of Speech is inherently vital to the function of our society in the free world. Politically, there are three main points to the freedom of speech. "(1) Facilitating free and open discussion of political issues within government, (2) promoting citizens participation in the political process, and (3) supporting the oversight function of the free press (Tedford)". These reasons are what makes up our democracy, which can only function if we have Free Speech. As the book states, Britain has switched from a monarchy to a democracy over the course of centuries and they have learned over time that they only way for democracy to ever work is if they have free speech. I personally agree and believe in this very fundamental right of free speech, and how we can only function as a democracy with it. The people NEED to have a a voice and to believe in anything they want to believe. This hol...

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...

The freedom of speech is necessary for democracy. The freedom of speech allows the facilitation of free and open discussion, promotes citizen participation in the political process, and supports freedom of press. (Tedford & Herbeck, 2017) The press functions in many ways to preserve democracy.  One of the most important functions is to serve as a "watch dog". The average citizen does not have the time or the resources required to stay updated on the latest policies, announcements, actions, etc. the press is a powerful medium that facilities communication and awareness between the two.  The press has access to information that a large majority of citizens do not and it is necessary that we have the ability to circulate this information. The press can serve as a "powerful antidote" to remedy any abuses of power and also play a large role in elections as well.  Because of the important role the press plays it is easy to see why it is alarming ...

For this blog post I am choosing to discuss the philosophical reason for the Freedom of Speech outlined in Chapter 15. The philosophical reason revolves around the idea that even the most outlandish ideas should be discuss in a free and open place with the knowledge that the "Truth" will prevail (Tedford and Herbeck 428). The justification that was outlined in the chapter for this relies on three reasonings. The first is that the accepted idea may be false and the truth may be censored. The second is that even truths must be tested and finally that there is likely some semblance of truth in all opinions (Tedford and Herbeck 428). My personal belief is that this philosophical reason directly relates to our political climate right now in the United States. Of course the political and individual reasons apply but this idea of truth in the era of "fake news" is important to me because for as many lies as politicians can tell and as many of their supporters that believ...

Coming into the class, I would have mostly aligned with Meiklejohn's (private versus public speech) theory for political speech. I believed allowing the marketplace of ideas---letting ideas duke it out while the best ideas rising to the top---to flourish on its own was ideal, but I didn't consider the problems with the concept all that much. It works under specific conditions that aren't reflective of reality. For starters: not everyone can or wants to engage in rational argumentation, and also, it trusts harmful ideas to just be left alone and die out on their own (i.e. Nazi ideology). Do we trust these radical ideologies to not pose a threat to the public and simply fade away even though there are perfectly good reasons to believe they can and will harm people? To that end, I agree with Haiman's Communication Context theory; when we evaluate "where one draws the line" for free expression, we need to consider a utilitarian/"greater good" approach to...

A particular phrase from Chapter 15 intrigued me, "we cannot help but be concerned about the freedom of expression," (Tedford and Herbeck 443). The whole textbook has shown how freedom of speech came about and why it is important, so to have something that displays concern for the future of it was very surprising. I do believe this concern is justified, though. I found an interesting article that touches on this subject titled, " How Free Speech Died in America " (Paynter). The points it raises questions one of the main reasons for freedom of speech: free speech is necessary for a democratic government (Tedford and Herbeck 443). The article states, "a safe space has become a place where free speech is shunned, when in reality, a safe space should be a place where debates are openly held without discrimination, instead of trying to silence the opposition," (Paynter). I want to know what my peers think of this. Is free speech threatened and we can no longer ...

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...

In the textbook, Tedford and Herbeck discuss three main reasons for freedom of speech: philosophical, political, and individual. Although all three have their own unique importance in regard to the freedom of speech, I would like to focus on the political reasons. To begin, freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of our democratic self-government, in order to facilitate an open political discussion. Additionally, providing the American people with the ability to speak freely about the government promotes citizen participation. Currently, citizen participation in our government in fairly low and by giving them the ability to participate means citizens, “can receive uncensored information and opinion to help them reach informed conclusions on public issues, and freely express the conclusions they reach” (Tedford and Herbeck 429). This is crucial in creating an environment of transparency and not allowing the government to determine what its citizens are exposed to, which can be dan...

Chapter 15 discusses Thomas I. Emerson’s Expression-Action Theory. In this theory Emerson talks about the “chaotic state of First Amendment theory” (433, Tedford). He talks about the idea that the Supreme Court is not consistent in regards to the first amendment. Tedford and Herbeck state “A condition that…has resulted from the Supreme Court’s failure to formulate and apply any single theory to free-speech cases. The various tests uses by the court…not only are vague, Emerson says, but vary so much from case to case that they can hardly be described as a rule of law at all” (433). Emerson goes on to explain how the expression-action theory can remedy this problem. What I found interesting about this though was Emerson’s diagnosis of the problem. I personally have heard of many Supreme Court cases surrounding the first amendment. I tried to look up exactly how many have been decided and couldn’t find an exact number. I did find  this page that highlights SOME landmark cases, b...

In chapter 15 of our textbook, Tedford and Herbeck explore Haiman's communication context theory and the four areas of speech he theorizes about. These areas include speech about other people, speech directed to other people, speech within the marketplace of ideas, and government participation in the communication marketplace. Haiman takes a position throughout these areas that's predominantly pro free-speech, as he repeatedly circles back to the notion of introducing more speech into the marketplace of ideas when conflict arises. When discussing the area of speech directed towards other people, he also takes a somewhat unconventional position at odds with current law in favor of the speaker. He writes: "...individuals in a free society are responsible for their own behavior. They are not objects which can be triggered into action by symbolic stimuli but human beings who decide how they will respond to the communication they see and hear." Reading this reminded me of ...

I thought this last chapter of the book Freedom of Speech in the United States was a good wrap-up to an understanding what the Freedom of Speech is and means for America. Of the three rationales for free speech, the political reason seemed to be the most dominant to me. Tedford and Herbeck explain that free speech is necessary for a democratic self-government to work by identifying three key points: “ (1) facilitating free and open deiscussion of political issues within government, (2) promoting citizens ’ participation in the political process, and (3) supporting the oversight function of a free press ” (429).   Basically, these points related to democracy allow parliament to debate, average citizens to receive and give information and opinions, and protection of those who expose abuse of power. Democracy seems to be a core reason for the Freedom of Speech from Tedford and Herbeck ’ s perspective and from that of Faust Rossi, Cornell professor of law. In an article on the Corn...