ENG126 The Attack On Censorship Hate & Free Speech Essay Reviews

User Generated

cbfuv

Writing

ENG126

Description

Write peer reviews for each of the essays I attached using the following sheet.


1.General Comment: Write a quick list of dominant impressions. What stands out? What examples or phrases are particularly vivid? What strikes you as most illuminating about the analysis? What do you like about the draft?):

2.Read silently through the paper again. What is the strong point of this paper? What do you like the most?

3.What new insight does this paper give or suggest about a particular aspect of free speech and situations in which it might or might not be limited?

4.What suggestions do you have to help the writer appeal to his or her audience?

5.How is the essay organized and how could this be improved?

6.Try to paraphrase the purpose or thesis of this paper. If you’re not sure what the main point is, try to offer some advice to help the writer clarify and build a thesis.

7.What ways might the writer improve the focus? How does the writer build upon a particular essay we read in class? Which essay is he or she focusing on? What could the writer do to broaden or narrow the topic in order to make the paper better? How can the writer go into greater depth with his or her analysis?

8.What are some ways that this paper relies on evidence for support? How has the writer incorporated quotes from the class readings? How has the writer drawn from specific cases and definitions from the reading in order to ground his or her argument upon known facts, examples, and precedents?

9.What more about this topic would you like to know that the writer does not tell you?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Andrew Dowling English 126 The Attack on Censorship The thought that appears in when the Federal Communications Commission is brought up are typically ones of unnecessary (or necessary depending on who you ask) government censorship and limitations on free speech. However, is the FCC really violating the first amendment’s right to free speech by imposing limits on what television and radio companies can and cannot broadcast? Some view the simple existence of the FCC as an infringement on the first amendment, as having a commission dedicated regulating communication seems to contradict our amendment that promises freedom of communication. Though the FCC limits what specific words can be said on air, it in no way limits individuals from expressing their viewpoints on air, as long as they word said viewpoints appropriately. The FCC simply forces broadcast companies to convey their messages using words that would not offend a listener or viewer who may have stumbled upon their broadcast accidentally. The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that the government shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (US Const., amend. I), and ‘speech’, as defined by Merriam Webster is simply the “communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words”. Therefore, by placing limitations on what words can or cannot be used, the FCC is not violating free speech, but rather restricting what form free speech can take. Broadcasters are free to express themselves on air, however must do so in a way that will not offend listeners. The FCC states that even explicitly sexual language may be allowed on air to portray a message, so long that it does not “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. The FCC filters out content that is intended to offend, or disgust an audience, it does not filter out messages and ideas. Simply put, obscene, indecent, and profane speech is not protected by the first amendment right, even though obscene, indecent, and profane ideas may. Therefore, the FCC is not violating any rights outlined by the first amendment by limiting such vulgar speech. In his article Why We Need To Abolish The FCC, author, Robert Garmong rants about how the FCC is an organization that is directly opposed to the idea of free speech, and therefore infringes upon our rights as citizens. Garmong brings up a valid point about the airwaves that radio signals travel on. He claims that because airwaves are public property, the information that is transmitted on them should not be filtered. The key fault in this argument is that indecent behavior and actions are not permitted on public property anyway. The United States does not allow nudity on public property, so why should it have to permit such indecencies on air? However, Garmong himself contends that “So far, only ‘indecency’ has been targeted by the FCC’s crackdown - but politicians on both sides have begun whispering demands to censor PBS or the Fox News Channel on the grounds that their alleged biases violate the ‘public interest.’” For better or worse, this is Garmong’s only real attempt to give evidence to convince his readers that the FCC is going to violate the first amendment. Garmong’s argument is weak, as the demands of politicians of the FCC in no way reflects the actions of the FCC. If I demand that you commit a crime, should you be arrested of that crime, regardless of your intent to commit it? No, of course not, and similarly the FCC should not be punished due to the demands of politicians. By creating a place where everyone needs to behave in a civil manner, the FCC has helped our first amendment right more than hurt it. When different opinions and ideas are voiced in an inoffensive way, it encourages more listeners to tune into their radio sets and televisions, as the threat of being bombarded with profanity is eliminated. If there was no censoring, television and radio could not be the beacon of free speech and public opinion that they are now, as much of the population would choose not to watch television or listen to the radio. The FCC acts in the public’s best interest. “speech." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2019. Web. 25 February 2019. “Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts.” Federal Communications Commission, 11 Feb. 2019, www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts. Garmong, Robert. “Why We Need To Abolish The FCC.” San Diego Business Journal, 9 Aug. 2004. SEUNGMIN LEE Dr. Jeannie Chiu English 126 5178 26 February 2019 Essay 1 first draft “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” (George Washington) If everything we say is monitored and censored by a man of authority, can we correct the wrong choice? In the 2000s, the National Intelligence Service (NIS) eavesdropped on politicians and civilians in South Korea. The National Intelligence Service said it was for the nation, but the public's response was appalling. The Korean people have been subjected to dictatorship in the past and know how frightening it is to eavesdrop. The reason why numerous inhumane acts committed at that time could have been carried out was also that the eavesdropping of the public could have prevented them. If the people's mouths are shut in this way, they lose the means to check the nation's inhumane acts. Therefore, stopping political remarks, such as the Dearborn School's blocking students from expressing their opinions, is a matter to be considered until the end. Also, preventing freedom of expression is like destroying the competitiveness of the country. There are many critical points of national competitiveness; creativity is the core of national competitiveness. Creativity cannot be pervasive without freedom of expression. If you suppress expression, your thoughts die. Then, should freedom of speech always be preserved? Freedom of expression is not allowed indefinitely. When it undermines necessary democratic order and national authority, it is also restricted to the public interest to hurt the aesthetic and social order by excessive description, such as violence and pornography. However, the Dearborn School officials were sending a Michigan high school student to home because they were revealing their opinions on a T-shirt opposing the Iraqi war. They claimed that the shirt promoted terrorism and would cause a disruption. Even if the school thinks that political remarks can cause disruption, I insist that schools should be a place where students can open their mouths freely. One reason that school should not shut the student up is that the student didn't break the rules. Schools have the right to punish students for breaking the rules. Schools have the right to punish students for breaking the rules. In other words, students know what punishment they will be if they break the rules they set in the school and agree to the content. However, if the school punishes students by first putting the rules aside from what they promised, I think the students can also fight the punishment. According to the article, " Administrators also did not have a right to send Barber home, according to the complaint, because legal precedent only permits schools to discipline students who are violating a written rule, and the Dearborn district does not have a policy banning political speech." (Student Sues School District, 582) Why legal precedent only permits schools to discipline students who are violating a written rule? It is a self-restriction of the powers authorized to guarantee the freedom and rights of the people. Punishing a student with such unenacted rules as Dearborn would allow the school to take control of the students' speech and behavior and could undermine their free discussion and freedom of expression. If a school is a dominant place to control students rather than a place of learning and exchange, the school will no longer be a student's space but a factory that produces workers for the privileged. Therefore, to keep schools as a place of free learning and expression for students, schools always need to inform students about corporal punishment and never punish students with standards that are not made beforehand. The other reason that The Dearborn School was wrong is the wording of the T-shirt was not to attack anyone, but to express one's opinion. According to Dearborn, the shirt promoted terrorism and would cause a disruption, although he wore the shirt to show his opinion about against war. However, that is an entirely wrong and subjective judgment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that even there was no evidence the Tshirt disrupted school, but the school had violated student’s right to freedom of speech because they don't want to risk it. (Student Sues School District, 582) The first is to promote terrorism, but I do not know where the evidence came from. The definition of terrorism is the act of using violence to intimidate or terrorize an opponent. The student did not encourage or induce violence, only came to school wearing a T-shirt that speaks his opinion instead. It was the school's judgment, not the other students or people, that judged the phrase to promote terrorism. In other words, the expression must have felt that it supports terrorism because it is an uncomfortable phrase for the political side of the school rather than developing real terrorism. Indeed, if the wording of the T-shirt encouraged terrorism, it would have been more legal than a problem in schools. The same holds for claims to cause disruption. The confusion that the school claims is a subjective judgment and preventing political speech by personal judgment is not an act for students but an action to avoid risk. Finally, in order to activate students' free discussion, there should be no punishment for political remarks about students. As American society is a gathering of various people, it is quite natural that views differ. Therefore, students think that learning to talk, persuade, and discuss with others in advance is very important. Since high school is an institution that provides education to students, it is essential to provide an environment that encourages students to express a variety of unique ideas. If schools ban students for fear of the aftermath of their political remarks, a place where students can freely share and learn their thoughts will disappear. There are arguments that college campuses should take a role to protect students who are frequently targeted by “hate speech.” (Massaro, 213) The reason for the claim is that it is better to educate students on how to respond to and refute political statements, even if it is inconvenient than banning them from making political statements to avoid conflicts. There is no fundamental solution by avoiding and turning away. Therefore, I think it is for students to teach them how to face in advance, even if the school is a little inconvenient. All human rights, including freedom of expression, were created with the aim of minimum safeguards to enjoy a 'good life.' It is paradoxical that human rights created in this sense are the source of the conflict. Likewise, conflict over freedom of expression and hate speech is a conflict that can be easily seen in our society. Then, where should freedom of expression be limited? We live in a society of diverse people and I don't think freedom of expression should be kept until it harms other people's freedom and rights. Also, as Dearborn School argues, schools can restrict freedom of expression in a capacity to prevent remarks that could be a problem. However, I think forced action should be the last resort. Controversial remarks should be tackled with arguments. The higher the level of this debate, the more nourished the democracy. I think that sufficient experience must be made to raise the level of controversy and that students should not be prevented from speaking in schools that should have this experience. The Dearborn School banned students from making political remarks on principles that they did not set in advance, and the judgment was made through their subjective opinions, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to learn the debate. Freedom of expression fosters democracy. We should not deny the next generation of democratic growth opportunities. Work Cited : Massaro, Toni M. Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211 (1991), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol32/iss2/3 BOLANLE BALOGUN ENGLISH 126: CRITICAL THINKING ESSAY ONE FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSOCIATION “A Case the Scouts Had to Win” February, 2019 Introduction In recent years, there had been so many discussions about freedom of speech and hate speech in colleges; what constitute each and what the first amendment says about freedom of speech. There had been debates about what is being protected by the first amendment and being careful not to restrict freedom of speech because liberty of free speech conflicts with the elimination of racism (Lawrence, 374). The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment (Wikipedia). While most people will agree that any disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action towards one or another person especially based on race, sexual orientation, background, color, disability etc. should not be used; it can sometimes be very difficult to decide what kinds of speech constitute insult (Lawrence, 373). How about other situations like being left out of a group due to your sexual orientation, ethnicity or sex? In the article by Johnson “A Case the Scouts Had to win”, the Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional for the state to require a Boy Scout to admit a gay scout master. The judgment was based on the first amendment’s free association (Johnson 596). One is free to choose who to associate with and who not to. We all need access to employment, transportation etc., it is our civil right; however, it is not a civil right to assist in raising other people’s children. Johnson further explained that serving as a role model for young children is a service, one which is entrusted to only a few people, those who share common values with their parents. The right of freedom of association is protected by the first amendment, antidiscrimination laws should not be extended to private groups whose purpose is not to make a profit but to bring together people with similar values. Extending anti-discrimination laws to such groups would destroy the nation’s diverse tradition of voluntary collaboration for common causes. Private groups are brought together for a reason, usually they have a mission and share the same goals and, in some cases, like the Boy’s Scout also share some morals and value. The mission of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. The Scout Oath states “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight”. Religion may not play a major role in the day-to-day activity of a scout’s troop but it is obvious from their oath that they put God first; the first statement declares “I will do my best to do my duty to God”. This shows how being of service to others relates to our duty to God and mentioning God shows their reverent toward God. BSA Statement of Religious Principle “maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.” Commitment to God requires following and teaching God’s principles as a guide to life. It is expected before anyone joins a private group, that such a person would find out what the group is all about, their mission, goals, values etc. and be sure you fit into the criteria. One cannot claim to be a Christian serving God and at the same time interested in a form of evil group for instance, it just does not go hand in hand. It’s been labeled an evil group for a reason; if you are interested in joining, that means you are ready to follow their ways, thereby dropping your good ways. It will be contradicting to join and then still stay “good” serving God. The Boys Scout is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people The Boys The group asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill. The Supreme Court ruled on the 28th of June 2000 that pronounced that it is unconstitutional for the state to require the Boy’s Scout troop to admit a gay scoutmaster. The court’s decision was based on the heart of the Frist Amendment’s guarantee of free association. This was a case with the Boys Scout off American v. James Dale. James had actually been a member of the BSA since he was 8 years old and remained until he turned 18. He then applied for adult membership which was approved for the position of assistant scoutmaster of Troop 73, but around that period when Dale got to college, he acknowledged to himself and others that he is gay. He got involved immediately and became the copresident of the university’s Lesbian/Gay Alliance. The BSA revoked his membership after finding out and Dale filed a complaint against the BSA. The court had ruled in the past that the need for basic necessities must sometimes override the right to associate. Everyone needs access to a job, transportation, restaurants etc., it is their civil right and cannot be denied due to freedom of association. However, it is not a civil right to assist in raising other people’s children. The Boys Scout are a private group of boys whose parents share the same values, this is a service and totally different from a privilege of an education, a job and access to public places. The purpose of the group is to instill values in the members. Being a gay is considered inappropriate by the group, so it became impossible for Dale to continue to be a scoutmaster as he is expected to be a role model to the boys. The Boy Scout pledge in their oath to remain morally straight but in Dale’s case, declaring that he is gay means that he has deviated from the oath and the BSA will not like him to influence the young boys likewise. Parents of the members will also not be comfortable having him as a scout master because they may be threatened of outside influence. The Chief Scout Executive of the BSA claims that being a scout leader is a privilege, not a right. Exercising the right to exclude others may seem intolerant, but such a right is indispensable to private groups seeking to define themselves, to chart their own moral course, and to work together for common ends. The Boys Scout cannot be required to admit leaders who advocated a position contrary to its own. Works sited: Johnson, Steffen N. “A Case the Scouts Had to Win.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 June 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/06/30/opinion/a-case-the-scouts-had-to-win.html Lawrence, Charles R. III. “The Debate Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims” Hate speech in the United States. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved 14 February 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech_in_the_United_States&oldid=88318016 3 Rehnquist. “BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 28 June 2000, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html (Links
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello buddy, your assignment is complete. If you need any edits or clarification, do not hesitate to let me know. Also, i have attached the peer reviews as separate dosuments. Otherwise, goodbye and welcome again.

Running head: PEER REVIEW

1

Peer review of “Attack on Censorship.”
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation

PEER REVIEW

2
Peer review of “Attack on Censorship”

Question 1
The draft on “The Attack of Censorship” is an impressive paper as it outlines the role of the
Federal Communications Commission in protecting the First Amendment from infringement.
The essay further addresses differing opinions on the same but concludes that politicians should
not control the FCC. Some of the phrases that stood out in the draft are:


is the FCC really violating the first amendment’s right to free speech by imposing limits
on what television and radio companies can and cannot broadcast?



Though the FCC limits what specific words can be said on air, it in no way limits
individuals from expressing their viewpoints on air, as long as they word said viewpoints
appropriately



The FCC states that even explicitly sexual language may be allowed on air to portray a
message, so long that it does not “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.”



The FCC filters out content that is intended to offend, or disgust an audience, it does not
filter out messages and ideas



The United States does not allow nudity on public property, so why should it have to
permit such indecencies on air?

I like the fact that the paper addresses the significant role of the FCC in ensuring that profane
speech and ideas are nor broadcasted through the public airwaves.
Question 2

PEER REVIEW

3

The strong point of this paper is its clearly stated thesis statement, which is ad equately backed by
well-articulated arguments. And so, the conclusion was in no way hindered by insufficient
evidence.
Question 3
The paper provides new insights on the FCC’s role in ensuring that televisions and radios do not
violate the First Amendment. Therefore, the FCC does not limit the freedom of Speech on air; it
only imposes regulations that ensure that all words are expressed appropriately. The rule ensures
that listeners and viewers are not offended.
Question 4
Some of the ways that the writer would appeal to his audience are by using the three rhetoric
appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos. The use of logos would have entailed the use of statistics, and
the perspective of experts. F...


Anonymous
Awesome! Made my life easier.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags