Skip to main content

The Philosophical Reason

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 believe and reiterate those falsehoods the truth will eventually come out. I look back on Trump's campaign where he made all of his promises of what he was going to do in office and regardless of the reasons why people voted for him he hasn't delivered. All of the people that  believed he was going to be a change of pace and that he was going to "make America great again" held some truth in that opinion, however, those same individuals are starting to see that he is getting nothing done or backing out of his campaign promises. I firmly believe that sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better and that idea in this instance relies on free speech. Eventually I think that through our speech the entire country will come together again and rally around the "truths" that no politician has given us and we will start to see some actual change.

Sources:
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2017.

Comments

  1. AnonymousDecember 6, 2017 at 3:47 PM

    I thought your post about the philosophical reason for freedom of speech was really interesting, specifically your commentary on “fake news”. I agree that the philosophical reason for free speech directly relates to our current political climate, especially since there are some many competing ideas within our political sphere. You first mentioned the three reasons for justification, which are crucial in understanding the importance of the freedom of speech. The first reason emphasizes that no one has the authority to suppress certain opinions, no matter their own personal views. This is important because it stresses that everyone has a different truth and that just because the loudest or strongest voice is the one deemed true, doesn’t mean that it is. This transitions to the last reason that there is likely some truth in all opinions. Personally, I feel that our society wants everything to black or white, right or wrong. However, that really isn’t how it should be. Rather, as a society, we should learn to accept differing opinions because the world would be pretty boring otherwise.

    Another topic you discussed in your post that I found interesting was your analysis of Trump and promises he made on the campaign trail. In your post, mention that Trump has been unable to follow through on promises or claims he has made that made him a popular candidate. Additionally, you discuss the perpetual cycle of “fake news” and false opinions. Although I am not saying I disagree with you in regards to the validity of information and promises spewed by politicians, such as Trump, I would say that we cannot completely write off their opinions as having no truth whatsoever. While the first reason may apply to what you are saying, the last philosophical reason suggests that while we may not find truth in their rhetoric, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth that we can take away from it. In all, I thought you made some really good points, applying this philosophical reasoning to current situations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 7, 2017 at 12:37 AM

    I like that you used the philosophical reasoning behind freedom of speech for this post. I agree that politicians (not only Trump) feed the public and insane amount of lies and bullshit. It is my belief and seemingly yours, that it is the responsibility of society, through our speech, to hold politicians accountable for their promises and their words. I find it extremely interesting that you brought up the age of "fake news" in relation to this concept. When the authors of our book bring up the fact that in an open forum of free speech and discussion, the "truth" will prevail. The hardest part for me to understand, is the subjectivity of the topic. Yes, statistical evidence can prove a "truth", but when it comes to someone creating blogs or post spreading absolute bullshit, it is hard for people to sift through what is actually the "truth", especially when it may be different to every person. I believe that in a place of free speech, listening and respecting other peoples opinions and beliefs is the only way that our country, and the people of this country will come together.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

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...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

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 ...
4 comments
Read more