Lauren's Blog
Let Freedom Ring
Let Freedom Ring
by: L.R. Chunn
Freedom of Expression is arguably the most significant American Right, but can the bell ring too loudly? Currently, the Freedom of Speech is ringing with foul rhetoric, racial slurs, and derogatory slander, which all aid in creating destructive racial opinions, societal divisions, and subordinated cultural groups. With the First Amendment promising to make no laws that abridge Freedom of Speech, the very concept of censorship should seem unconstitutional, unnatural, and even unpatriotic. However, the anti-patriotism does not stem from censorship’s attempt to silence speech; instead it may be actualized in the Freedom of Speech itself. Limitless expression is considerably more stifling than repressed expression.
“[The First Amendment] is supported by the value of freedom and liberty, as well as by the additional reasons special to the freedom to express opinions, disseminate information, and publish and perform artistic creations,” (Post 43). Contrarily, one can be pro-censorship while still valuing individual opinions and liberty. Censorship should not be implemented frivolously to silence dissenters. It should be utilized to target pervasive cultural issues such as mainstream racial relations with a focus on words that are oppressively demeaning. A crusade against the insidious vocabulary of racially degrading words is necessary for promoting social change in race relations. Despite being a representation of the people, the application of censorship employed by the government is much in its own interests, not those of its citizens. “The
content of the speech that the state wants to curb is usually public. It relates to criticism of the government, to the dissemination of ideas deemed pernicious or blasphemous, or to the corruption of public morals,” (Post 43). Given the government’s ability to employ censorship to avoid “the corruption of public morals”, it would seem innate to regard words like “nigger”, “cracker”, and similar disparaging language as candidates for censorship considering they strain public racial relations and are ethically shameful.
This is the aspect of Freedom of Speech that makes it oppressive, and unpatriotic. Often, “The ‘free speech’ of men is that which ‘silences’ and thus subordinates women,” (Post 319). This assessment of the man to woman dichotomy is also comparable to white and black racial relations. In terms of the word “nigger” and other derogatory expressions that blacks self-identify with daily, the racial strain stems from the observance that occurs from voyeurs of outside races. The way that blacks relate to each other affects how outside communities perceive the black race, as well as how they relate to the black race. Blacks use derogatory and despicable language in reference to each other flippantly, and it is this freedom that warrants whites’ usage of the same terms. The argument of word connotation changing with skin color is insidious; speech remains speech irregardless of who is speaking.
“Speech may, together with other social forces, reinforce and perpetuate long term and persisting patterns of oppression and discrimination against the weak,” (Post 44). It is this cycle that must be stifled because these words are only creating further division in society’s racial interrelations. Censorship has the power to help end this division by limiting the prevalence of the derogatory words that are contributing to racial belittlement. Hence, it is the freedom of speech that becomes the oppressive force, because the suppressive ideology of censorship would be the true freedom. Censorship would relieve the racial slander that the First Amendment allows, which is a stride towards minimizing the racial divide.
It would be unreasonable to propose the recantation of such a fundamental Right as the Freedom of Expression. Fortunately, there are alternative ways to approach the racially derogatory speech that is ailing this country and hindering racial relations. “In our society the protection of free speech of course has its limits,” (Childs 4). This expresses that there are limitations on what the law protects under Freedom of Speech. Of which, “[some speech] falls into an ‘unprotected category,’ such as libel and slander, obscenity, or “fighting words,” (Cohen, E 126). The existence of a clause that categorizes obscenity as unprotected and outside the perimeters of Freedom of Speech is a significant decree. Although what classifies as obscene is not defined within the clause, the clauses existence creates the prospect for reconsideration of what can be categorized as obscenity by law.
Speech is a dominating instrument; not only is it a constitutional right, but it carries social responsibilities. Since speech has the potential to affect those outside of oneself, it is not an unjustifiable idea that it should be moderately regulated. “If those who are offended by a certain speech feel an obligation to stay because they think that they will suffer more by leaving and avoiding it, then there are grounds for placing restrictions on speech,” (Cohen-Almagor 11). This idea justifies censorship if the words
rendered suffice adequate harm to another that can not be resolved through dismissal; in this regard verbal attack is much like physical assault. The assault on the black race and on racial relations can not be resolved through a mere dismissal; censorship must reform how blacks relate as people and how people relate to blacks.
Those who appeal the regulation of speech cite the First Amendment, often emphasizing the word “freedom”. This “freedom of expression”, however, is not truly a freedom at all. Rather, it is discrete oppression disguised as an amendment. “If freedom inheres in the capacity to choose a course of action, then it is simultaneously realized and negated in the very act of choosing. Commitment to a particular action forecloses the freedom that enabled the commitment. In this regard, it is not merely paradoxical in its workings, but self-canceling and finally unachievable,” (Post 313). This coincides with the idea Freedom of Expression is fundamentally flawed. Freedom is ringing boisterously, and it must be redirected before the ringing becomes deafening.
Bibliography
Childs, Elizabeth, Suspended License: Censorship and the Visual Arts. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1997.
Cohen-Almagor, Raphael, Speech, Media, and Ethics: The Limits of Free Expression. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
Cohen, Elliot, and Deni Elliot. Journalism Ethics: Contemporary Ethical Issues. Denver: ABC-CLIO, 1997.
Post, Robert, Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation. Los Angeles: The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and Humanities, 1998.
Freedom of Expression is arguably the most significant American Right, but can the bell ring too loudly? Currently, the Freedom of Speech is ringing with foul rhetoric, racial slurs, and derogatory slander, which all aid in creating destructive racial opinions, societal divisions, and subordinated cultural groups. With the First Amendment promising to make no laws that abridge Freedom of Speech, the very concept of censorship should seem unconstitutional, unnatural, and even unpatriotic. However, the anti-patriotism does not stem from censorship’s attempt to silence speech; instead it may be actualized in the Freedom of Speech itself. Limitless expression is considerably more stifling than repressed expression.
“[The First Amendment] is supported by the value of freedom and liberty, as well as by the additional reasons special to the freedom to express opinions, disseminate information, and publish and perform artistic creations,” (Post 43). Contrarily, one can be pro-censorship while still valuing individual opinions and liberty. Censorship should not be implemented frivolously to silence dissenters. It should be utilized to target pervasive cultural issues such as mainstream racial relations with a focus on words that are oppressively demeaning. A crusade against the insidious vocabulary of racially degrading words is necessary for promoting social change in race relations. Despite being a representation of the people, the application of censorship employed by the government is much in its own interests, not those of its citizens. “The
content of the speech that the state wants to curb is usually public. It relates to criticism of the government, to the dissemination of ideas deemed pernicious or blasphemous, or to the corruption of public morals,” (Post 43). Given the government’s ability to employ censorship to avoid “the corruption of public morals”, it would seem innate to regard words like “nigger”, “cracker”, and similar disparaging language as candidates for censorship considering they strain public racial relations and are ethically shameful.
This is the aspect of Freedom of Speech that makes it oppressive, and unpatriotic. Often, “The ‘free speech’ of men is that which ‘silences’ and thus subordinates women,” (Post 319). This assessment of the man to woman dichotomy is also comparable to white and black racial relations. In terms of the word “nigger” and other derogatory expressions that blacks self-identify with daily, the racial strain stems from the observance that occurs from voyeurs of outside races. The way that blacks relate to each other affects how outside communities perceive the black race, as well as how they relate to the black race. Blacks use derogatory and despicable language in reference to each other flippantly, and it is this freedom that warrants whites’ usage of the same terms. The argument of word connotation changing with skin color is insidious; speech remains speech irregardless of who is speaking.
“Speech may, together with other social forces, reinforce and perpetuate long term and persisting patterns of oppression and discrimination against the weak,” (Post 44). It is this cycle that must be stifled because these words are only creating further division in society’s racial interrelations. Censorship has the power to help end this division by limiting the prevalence of the derogatory words that are contributing to racial belittlement. Hence, it is the freedom of speech that becomes the oppressive force, because the suppressive ideology of censorship would be the true freedom. Censorship would relieve the racial slander that the First Amendment allows, which is a stride towards minimizing the racial divide.
It would be unreasonable to propose the recantation of such a fundamental Right as the Freedom of Expression. Fortunately, there are alternative ways to approach the racially derogatory speech that is ailing this country and hindering racial relations. “In our society the protection of free speech of course has its limits,” (Childs 4). This expresses that there are limitations on what the law protects under Freedom of Speech. Of which, “[some speech] falls into an ‘unprotected category,’ such as libel and slander, obscenity, or “fighting words,” (Cohen, E 126). The existence of a clause that categorizes obscenity as unprotected and outside the perimeters of Freedom of Speech is a significant decree. Although what classifies as obscene is not defined within the clause, the clauses existence creates the prospect for reconsideration of what can be categorized as obscenity by law.
Speech is a dominating instrument; not only is it a constitutional right, but it carries social responsibilities. Since speech has the potential to affect those outside of oneself, it is not an unjustifiable idea that it should be moderately regulated. “If those who are offended by a certain speech feel an obligation to stay because they think that they will suffer more by leaving and avoiding it, then there are grounds for placing restrictions on speech,” (Cohen-Almagor 11). This idea justifies censorship if the words
rendered suffice adequate harm to another that can not be resolved through dismissal; in this regard verbal attack is much like physical assault. The assault on the black race and on racial relations can not be resolved through a mere dismissal; censorship must reform how blacks relate as people and how people relate to blacks.
Those who appeal the regulation of speech cite the First Amendment, often emphasizing the word “freedom”. This “freedom of expression”, however, is not truly a freedom at all. Rather, it is discrete oppression disguised as an amendment. “If freedom inheres in the capacity to choose a course of action, then it is simultaneously realized and negated in the very act of choosing. Commitment to a particular action forecloses the freedom that enabled the commitment. In this regard, it is not merely paradoxical in its workings, but self-canceling and finally unachievable,” (Post 313). This coincides with the idea Freedom of Expression is fundamentally flawed. Freedom is ringing boisterously, and it must be redirected before the ringing becomes deafening.
Bibliography
Childs, Elizabeth, Suspended License: Censorship and the Visual Arts. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1997.
Cohen-Almagor, Raphael, Speech, Media, and Ethics: The Limits of Free Expression. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
Cohen, Elliot, and Deni Elliot. Journalism Ethics: Contemporary Ethical Issues. Denver: ABC-CLIO, 1997.
Post, Robert, Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation. Los Angeles: The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and Humanities, 1998.
1 comment:
Hi, very interesting post, greetings from Greece!
Post a Comment