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 with us as otherwise nothing will change.” Freedom of speech has the power to bring change. All throughout history we see an example of people creating hubs for expression and speech and has pushed for positive outcomes to our laws and our government as a whole. Although there is significant amount of positivity coming from freedom of speech in our democracy, it also allows bigots to express their unpopularly held opinons. Free speech allows us all to challenge those thoughts and even change minds, as hard as that may sound.
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...
I wrote about something similar in my own post and agree with what you're saying. Freedom of speech is necessary for various reasons, but it is threatened by people who can't respectfully deal with differences in opinion. People like this often try to silence members of the opposing group through various means. This is obviously problematic for many reasons, but especially for groups with a minority opinion that may not be able to get their voices heard. A lot of this stems from the idea that our own opinions are always right, but as you've stated, in order to have a democracy that can create change, there must be the ability for all persons to state their beliefs. We can back up our own opinions while still respecting opposing views. It seems like common sense, but is necessary to remember when issues of the freedom of speech come up.
ReplyDeleteI think having the ability to expose ourselves to various ideas we disagree with is beneficial for two reasons: it allows us to become familiar with opposing views and it puts us in a position where we may have to reexamine our own beliefs if we fear they're wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo expand on this first point, I believe constant exposure to ideas that challenge ours causes us to know how to better respond to them as well as strengthen the beliefs we currently hold. In the context of political conversations, for example, I believe familiarity with multiple perspectives allows us to better understand the mentality of those we disagree with as well as improve our ability to respond to other arguments. On Facebook and Twitter, I follow news from a number of different sources - I view content posted by conservative outlets like the Weekly Standard, moderate outlets like the Economist, and liberal outlets like the New Yorker to try to get an understanding of where others are coming from on major issues and why they believe what they do.
As I said earlier, I think there's another element to familiarizing ourselves with other perspectives, and that's the fact that our own beliefs can potentially change when exposed to new ideas. There have been multiple instances where I've come across new ideas that influence how I view certain issues, and I do my best to try to keep an open mind as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that free expression is super beneficial for a self-governing democratic society in that it allows the people, the public sphere, to flourish (as opposed to other countries like North Korea). With all the different ways free speech has been threatened recently, especially with our Net Neutrality regulations about to be reversed, I've appreciated our freedom of expression more, but over the past three months, I've learned that we have to remind ourselves to be careful of not getting carried away with free expression by placing it up on a pedestal.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, you remark how the book was coming full circle, and I sensed that too. The book hammers the idea that while free expression is a basic human right and certainly an important value, it's not the only value we have, and so we need to weigh it against other values. That's why we've established boundaries for what qualifies as worthwhile and worthless speech---obscenity, incitement, libel, etc.---that for the most part have worked well so far. In those cases, we reasoned through ethics that interests in public health and social stability were all important values as well. While considering all the amazing ways we are allowed to express ourselves without worry, we need to continue weighing communication ethics, what we ought to do not what we are allowed to do, when we talk about free expression.