Freedom of Expression

–PLEASE READ FROM THE SOURCE PROVIDED WITH THE ORDER—
IT SHOULD BE IN MLA FORMAT.
Develop essay with detailed examples and answer this question after reading from the source that is provided with the order

Q; Mathew Ingram’s essay also deals with hate speech, but his is a
different sort of claim from McElwee’s. What claim is Ingram
supporting? Do you agree? Why, or why not?

ANSWER

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is a right covered in most democracies in the world. In the United States, the right is contained in the First Amendment of the constitution. The right allows people to express themselves, the press to have freedom of speech, and the people to assemble in demonstrations to petition the government. The right is vital in a democracy where people decide both governance and law by talking to each other. It was easier to know the exact metrics of the right before social media and the internet, but today, freedom of expression has sunk into oblivion with different parties interpreting in different ways, some that have resulted in conflict and lawsuits. However, as both Sean McElwee and Mathew Ingram argued, freedom of speech requires a champion to fight for it in the face of continued devastation on both ends, the extreme libertarian end, and the oppressive inhibitive end.

According to Ingram, freedom of speech, “however offensive that speech might be, is a principle that needs all the help it can get” (Ingram). He concludes based on the recent occurrences between Twitter and different governments around the world, particularly the French government. Twitter and other social media sites have become a platform that signifies the freedom of public speech. Revolutions have started and ended on Twitter. Ideas, information, and education on matters from philanthropy, environmental conservation, pandemics, and much have been shared on the platform to enrich human society in its entirety. Jeffrey Rosen summarised the fundamental importance of social media, saying that we should consider it a “fractious marketplace of ideas… where all values, including civility norms, are always open for debate” (McElwee). Ingram thought this was a romanticized function of social media and too factious to be real. I would agree; taking this as the absolute definition of purpose for the internet means that anything is worth discussing regardless of what it means for different parties across the globe. For instance, say today the discussion on Twitter is why slavery was economical to capitalism and the reason it should persist or maybe closer home, say the discussion is about racism and how one race is inferior to the other. Rosen says these are ideas should be allowed, but for a youngling reading through such a trend, what is to stop him or her from despising one race from something he or she read on Twitter? Is this the function of the freedom of expression? To spread intolerance, bigotry, and hatefulness?

The truth is, as McElwee puts it, “freedom of speech is not an absolute right, and no right is weighted in a vacuum” (McElwee). The same speech restrictions put in place by the law should apply to social media as well. For instance, the law goes beyond the freedom to highlight that speech intended to intimidate vulnerable groups is prohibited. In an ancient debate of Hart vs. Devlin about the law, the discussion weighs the limits of the law beyond which people should be allowed to lead their lives in private. On the freedom of speech, the law applies more to Devlin’s philosophy where the law should enforce against behavior deemed immoral, unjust by society’s collective judgment. Hart, the libertarian, would also argue for a set limit on the freedom of speech because his major highlight in freedom to do anything, anywhere was on the principle that does not cause harm to others (Hittinger 1990). This is the point which Ingram appears to differ because to him; speech regardless of intent should be out there uninhibited.

In schools, just like anywhere else, freedom of speech should have some impositions and consequences. The ACLU believes that less speech on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation is not a solution and that more speech is the best revenge. While this argument is sensible in some way, it is still not the best alternative in the face of the power of the freedom of speech. The article references the Jews’ oppression; using that as an example, we can look at how it began. Hatefulness against the Jews commenced in Germany just before the commencement of World War II. Hitler and his subordinates convinced the German people that Jews in their country were there to steal their opportunities and infect their race with an impurity (Herf 2005). Enough repetition of this hatefulness made the German people believe and storm the streets to massacre all the Jews. That is what free speech does. If it is repeated enough times, it becomes truth, which translates to conflict, war, and death.

The conditions of the freedom of expression should be that if the speech is public, then it does not promote intolerance and should be imposed on all students, faculty, and guests. The penalty for violation, depending on the extent, should be suspension or expulsion from the premises. It sounds harsh, but it is necessary. Human civilization was not founded on laws that aimed at society’s incoherence but on society’s cohesion. It is impossible to achieve integration by allowing some behavior that provides for hatefulness and intolerance.

Works Cited

Herf, J. (2005). The “Jewish war”: Goebbels and the antisemitic campaigns of the Nazi propaganda ministry. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 19(1), 51-80.

Hittinger, R. (1990). The Hart-Devlin Debate Revisited. Am. J. Juris., 35, 47.