Revision of Position Paper
2. “Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be.”* Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Why? · How can Americans most effectively express their convictions about what laws and policies should be?
· What limits, if any, should a democratic government be permitted to place on freedom of expression?
What is actually a legitimate government? There are millions of different answers to this question. Nevertheless, people always share a common point of view that a legitimate government creates a stable society; it raises people’s standard of living; more important, it gives people confidence in their futures. These conditions can define a legitimate government much more accurately than free speech. I disagree with Ronald Dworkin’s definition. With a few exceptions, the majority of developing countries, such as Greece and Iceland, has adopted electoral democratic process of not preventing any individual’s speech. Yet these countries are still suffering from civil strife and poverty. Greece’s conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras has stated “Unemployment in Greece has topped 25 percent, with rapidly worsening poverty that has prompted the Democratic Left to harden its position.” According to the World Bank, the GDP of Greece has fell from 341.6 billion dollars to 249.1 billion dollars from 2008 to 2012. Even more ironic, democracy actually originated in Greece. If free speech is the condition of a legitimate government, why do the people of these countries not have a stable society, a better living standard, and full confidence in their futures? The reason is that they are blindly copying the system that has...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document