Alexander Meiklejohn was a philosopher and university lecturer although it is his legacy as an advocate of free speech which he is most known for. It is through his published work Free Speech (1948) and its Relation to Self Government that we can draw conclusions about his view on freedom of expression and democracy. Additionally we can contrast Meiklejohns views through further analysis of his model of the Town Hall debate and comparison with Jurgen Habermas (1964) and his theory of the Public Sphere which will be used to draw examples from. In both theories outlined by Meiklejohn and Habermas the relationship between freedom of speech and the acknowledgment of recognition in relation to democracy is outlined specifically and will be contrast opposingly to set fourth the notions of their arguments and theories as outlined.
The first point of mutual agreement that can de drawn upon relates to the people and their rights to themselves and others. Both Meiklejohn (1948) and Habermas (1964) mutually agreed upon the fact that democracy could not be achieved without acknowledging that each and every person has first and foremost a high degree of respect for each other. The need for mutual respect for one another can be seen at various times throughout their texts under closer inspection when analysizing their displayed arguments.
The second similarity between Meiklejohn (1948) and Habermas (1964) is that they both created spaces for political discussion unhindered by governmental influence. For Meiklejohn (1964) it is the real ‘town hall meeting model’ versus the imagined or physically unable to see ‘public sphere’ model by Habermas (1964). Further analysis of their theories on democracy and freedom of speech. In regards to the...
... middle of paper ...
...o not declare that any man may talk as he pleases, when he pleases, about what he pleases, to whom he pleases’. This implies that Meiklejohn (1948) does not support each and every individuals right to speak when they have something to say. Therefor this is a limitation on an individuals right of being an autonomous person in a self governed democracy. Like wise Schauer recognized the limitations of Meiklejohn’s (1948) theory of the town hall meeting:
To the extent that we support individual rights of expression, argument and criticism, we make claims inconsistent with a view of democracy founded on the absolute sovereignty of the people as a whole. (1982, p. 41)
This further supports the said limitation of Meiklejohn’s theory because as he states yes individuals have a right to speak but it is the people as a whole that a conclusion can be drawn Meiklejohn (1948).
His argument was block by block and he started with explaining the common belief of what the “right to speak freely,” by quoting the well known saying by Voltaire “‘I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the right your right to say it.’” This is the definition that most people tend to agree with; however, after displaying the original definition he uses logic and rationale to deconstructs the ethics of people and depict the accurate interpretation of the “right to speak, “ by using tone, syntax, literary devices, and essay organization to give the most impactful article possible. By starting the the definition of the norm and ending with the true interpretation, “we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity.” By ending on this absolute note it creates a space for the readers to contemplate on his
The first amendment is being abused by more people now than ever before. People like to shout, “First Amendment” when they find themselves in a controversial situation because of certain things they wrote or spoke about. People are being less responsible for their actions and are blaming the constitution for their slip-ups. In “Free-Speech Follies” by Stanley Fish, Fish addresses the First Amendment issue. Fish claims that people use the First Amendment to try to get themselves out of trouble or criticism and that they need to start being responsible for their actions and need to start having a sense of judgment.
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
Hoebeke, C. H. (1995). The road to mass democracy: original intent and the Seventeenth Amendment. New Brunswick (U.S.A): Transaction Publishers.
Freedom of expression can sometimes be abused by saying hateful things, however overall it is positive and beneficial. It allows people to be themselves and have a voice, it promotes thinking and new ideas, it allows for peaceful conflict, it motivates people to make changes, and many other things. As one can see, freedom of expression is one of the main foundations of this country, and is tremendously beneficial to the people in, making Rosenblatt’s argument potent and
From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent First Amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us. Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
Gearon, L. (2006). Freedom of expression and human rights: Historical, literary and political contexts. Brighton [u.a.: Sussex Academic.
In the article "The Indispensable Opposition" the author, Walter Lippmann acknowledges that the right of freedom of speech is expressed inadequately and full of accidental one-way ideas. He believes to find the best solution, you need to listen to other opposing views.
Fernandes, Michael J. "Zechariah Chafee." Free Speech Philosophers --. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.
Giving citizens individual liberties is perhaps one of the most important aspects of a democracy because it differentiates it from other forms of government. Democracy is ...
Author argues that the democracy is the highest form of freedom. But this freedom along with itself also carries the gauge of discipline and humility. He rightly argued that democracy is the greatest institution in the world so there is a high chance of being greatly abus...