Pros And Cons Of Freedom Of Speech Equality
Freedom of Speech vs. Equality.
-Arguments-
Rav vs. City of St. Paul is not a case concerned with the privacy of the black family involved. The members of the CCClan shouldn’t have been in their back yard and therefore they are guilty of trespassing. However, there is something much more important about this case, something much heavier than violation of privacy. This case is about freedom of speech and whether regulating speech would ensure equality, or only lead towards greater discrimination.
If we look back at the history of the US, it is obvious that African Americans have not always had the rights they have today; that they haven’t always been equal compared to other races in the US. However, their main tool for acquiring social equality throughout the years has been speech in the many different forms it can take. Freedom of speech has been theirs, and every other minority’s main means for standing up against the majority and claiming their rights, which has eventually led to the establishment of a democratic American society in which everyone has equal rights and freedoms. Free speech inspires social changes and must therefore not be restricted under any circumstances. [1] Restricting speech wouldn’t mean protecting minorities; it would only …show more content…
By doing this, the state treats them differently compared to the majority, which is essentially violation of the idea of equality. To avoid this, the state must allow every kind of speech to be heard and believe that its citizens are capable of deciding for themselves what to believe and be convinced by and what to reject as unacceptable. Ideas against racism must prevail through their power and not the paternalistic approach by the state. The state must believe that its citizens will make the right judgment in this and any other case, and not force them to do so by
-Arguments-
Rav vs. City of St. Paul is not a case concerned with the privacy of the black family involved. The members of the CCClan shouldn’t have been in their back yard and therefore they are guilty of trespassing. However, there is something much more important about this case, something much heavier than violation of privacy. This case is about freedom of speech and whether regulating speech would ensure equality, or only lead towards greater discrimination.
If we look back at the history of the US, it is obvious that African Americans have not always had the rights they have today; that they haven’t always been equal compared to other races in the US. However, their main tool for acquiring social equality throughout the years has been speech in the many different forms it can take. Freedom of speech has been theirs, and every other minority’s main means for standing up against the majority and claiming their rights, which has eventually led to the establishment of a democratic American society in which everyone has equal rights and freedoms. Free speech inspires social changes and must therefore not be restricted under any circumstances. [1] Restricting speech wouldn’t mean protecting minorities; it would only …show more content…
By doing this, the state treats them differently compared to the majority, which is essentially violation of the idea of equality. To avoid this, the state must allow every kind of speech to be heard and believe that its citizens are capable of deciding for themselves what to believe and be convinced by and what to reject as unacceptable. Ideas against racism must prevail through their power and not the paternalistic approach by the state. The state must believe that its citizens will make the right judgment in this and any other case, and not force them to do so by