REHUGO

Waleed Ahmed

Mr. Soeth

English 3 AP

February 9, 2011

REHUGO – Government

A. Articles read:

a. “Free Speech Has Limits” by Steven J. Heyman

b. “Hate Speech Should Not Be Regulated” by Jonathan Gallagher

B. Articles cited below

C. Argument

a. Heyman holds a more liberal view on free speech as he describes that free speech should take into account the rights of human beings. He argues that freedom of expression should be understood with rights of other individuals and the community as a whole so that no groups’ social rights are harmed.

b. Gallagher concluded in his article that criminalizing free speech would corrupt a democratic society such as the US. Furthermore, he states that this corruption would cause the people to think a certain way.

D. Evidence

a. Pathos appeared frequently in “Free Speech Has Limits” due to the humanitarian overtone that Steven J. Heyman held throughout the article. “Speakers should be required to respect the fundamental rights of others.” Heyman conveys that his goal is to support individuals of society and to instill a feeling of social justice to the reader. With Heyman’s use of pathos, a reader will consider that the over usage of free speech can attack not only the beliefs of others but also the reader’s beliefs, as well. Logos is presented as Heyman provides examples of Supreme Court cases. The proceedings of Abrams v. United States provided the author with an example that rights should not be protected during political trials, but only during procedures of social injustice. The Supreme Court case supported Heyman by how it expressed that there existed different standards for the judging of private rights by the government.

b. Gallagher’s article proved to be littered with pathos as he brought in the concept of religion. The author provided an example of a Canadian case where a man placed Bible verses into a newspaper denouncing gay marriage. As the man was sued for the act, the courts in Canada concluded that it was against the civil rights code to deny one for spreading Scripture. Effectiveness carries on through how the reader may hold a deep relationship with their religious practices and thus appealing to one’s beliefs even if the beliefs of another group were attacked. Ethos is used in Gallagher’s article as he brings in Asma Jahangir, a UN rapporteur. Jahangir stated that objective criticism of religion is a human right, the only rights that are protected are the rights to practice a religion. This appeal helps the reader still hold debate on the topic, thus showing that a government can’t just call criticism illegal and power is still in the hands of the people.

E. Rhetorical Strategies

a. As Heyman introduces how to combat the demoralizing effects of free speech on individuals by going into his concept of rights-based theory of free speech. Using definition, the author elaborates on his concept that government should have greater authority to regulate speech against certain groups in society. By setting up the argument and explaining his concept, the reader then has the ability to infer how Heyman is using modern values with the First Amendment to create debate within the reader’s mind, which will then last to be incited later. Process analysis is present as well, by how the author states the steps to regulate the effects of free speech. This provides the reader to feel like they now have a responsibility to uphold the moral use of free speech as the steps have been laid out for them.

b. At the close of Gallagher’s article, he employs syntax and a rhetorical question side-by-side to emphasize a critical question to the reader. Paragraph 21 uses syntax to deliver short and emphasizing statements, “What is said is different than what is heard. Communication is not exact.” Gallagher then concludes his statement stating that objective analysis would be loss if there was no free speech, and then poses his rhetorical question. The effectiveness of this single paragraph comes from the emphasis of the author’s statements, but then he ends with a statement stating how one should view that loss of free speech is wrong. Once he uses the rhetorical question, it is used primarily to, not instill an idea in a reader’s mind, but to make sure that the reader gets his conclusion.

F. Heyman’s article appeared more appealing due to the fact that the emphasis was more on the values of the person rather than on the role of government on free speech. As we criticize the things that go about us every day, our own judgment and moral values should help us decide whether or not we are attacking the views of another person. Once we place the responsibility of this act upon ourselves, the less we will depend on government to protect an inalienable right and promote that right to all of society.

Heyman, Steven J. "Free Speech Has Limits." Civil Liberties. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Feb. 2011.

Gallagher, Jonathan. "Hate Speech Should Not Be Regulated." Civil Liberties. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.