Laura Ramirez AP Lang & Comp Ms.

Fansler Period 5 1/26/13

The Interest in Freedom

In the past decade or so the United States has dealt with civic emergencies from the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to the economic down turn of 2008. The fear of crisis has lead citizens to give up freedoms that allow us to think as individuals, so that we may be protected by our government. Laws have been passed in which personal freedoms of the people have been limited, from being able to tap in to our personal phone calls to cameras on street lights with face recognition. Fear can cause people to think irrationally in a situation, leading them to accept ideas that normally would sound drastic, like the passing of the Patriot Act. Freedom of speech is our first constitutional right; it allows the American people to state their beliefs. Although we are glorified as the free country, entirely free speech is no longer in the national interest and has been tarnished with other laws that override the first amendment. Jeff Jacoby illustrates the importance of freedom speech even if the subject matter that the speaker is presenting is something as deplorable as claiming the Holocaust never happened. Jeff, although a Jew believes David Irving, the man who claimed the holocaust never happened,

shouldnt be arrested for hate speech against the Jews. Not when Austrias president was a former official in the Nazi army, not only was it hypocritical to submit Austrias people to a law that has been undermined by who they selected for presidency but a barrier set for the people of Austrias ability to free speech. Jeffs father is a survivor of the holocaust, which would lead many sons and daughters to hate the people who praise the Nazis, yet he defends not the ideas of Irving but that Irving has the right to state his beliefs without his criminal record being jeopardized. He believes that if the government is given the opportunity to make the expression of Holocaust denial today [it] can make the expression of other offensive opinions a crime tomorrow, goes to show that if the majority of people dont want something said out loud it is outlawed. When people submit to these laws it shows that censorship is safer than ignoring the problem that might arise when hearing or reading something they dont like. Some seem to forget that just as easily as we can outlaw peoples right to think out loud we can easily tolerate the ideas that surround us. At another level Eugene Robinson discusses the implications that words have on others when said at the wrong moment and around candid camera. Bus uncle was a popular video on Youtube.com set in a Hong Kong public bus, when a simple request from a young man to another man takes the wrong turn it spirals out in to a very dramatic public verbal fight. Eugene states that our personal lives can always potentially be on Candid Camera and we are unable to keep our private lives especially when cell phones with cameras are practically everywhere. Laws have tried to make changes to our privacy whether it is the governments ability to breach our private telephone conversation in order to prevent terrorist attacks or making it illegal to publish a video tape of someone without their permission. These laws are made to essentially aid the public but like with all other laws that limit our personal freedoms they come with their

downside. Censorship is not something done in the United States lightly yet there are little bursts of it everywhere. From schools not allowing students to use profanity, for obvious reasons, to networks governed by the FDA so that what we see and hear in the media is within an acceptable range. Tolerance is key to surviving in such a diverse culture, we all dont have equal tastes and its what makes the United States such an appealing place, yet we still lack the ability to look away when we see something that scares, disgusts, or annoys us, which drives us to want censorship to govern our world and fill us with ignorance of what is true and what has been opted as to brusque on our sensitive minds. Language serves as the major and most basic asset that humanity today uses to share thoughts beliefs prejudices concerns and so on. E.J. Dionne asserts in his Op-Ed article Divisive in any Language, that government officials shouldnt pass unnecessary bills that explain what our national language is or what the nation should do to preserve and enhance it, since it seems to be just a form of legal and formal disrespect to the members in society that are currently large [and] Spanish-speaking. E.J. makes clear that although people living in a country where the majority of the people are speaking a certain language, immigrants are entitled to freely choose whether or not to learn it. The choice that our first amendment reinforces proves that Sen. James Inhofe in declaring English to be our national language is just pushing his means of insulting a nation filled with immigrant families that have other native tongues. The choice is key and declaring a bill that seems to be pushing an agenda where the first amendment is being tarnished is Unconstitutional in a sense and un-American in another. America has always been a country of freedom and opportunity, equal opportunity and freedom should come to all residents whether or not there hellos are in a language you understand.

In a nation where we stand proud of our constitution and fight for its conservation from enemies abroad, we have forgotten to conserve it from those within us that arent determined to keep it intact. We are no longer interested in the purity of freedom and especially one of free speech. We rather pass bills that ensure certain agendas are met and certain things are left unspoken. The media is kept on a leash so that censorship isnt as obvious as it is in other countries but is there nevertheless. Yet, if people cannot tolerate the beliefs and biases that are contrary to their own, within the nation, the country will remain ignorant to the world that is different around them, filled with not only different beliefs but different ethics and laws they live by. Our next step towards fighting once again for conservation of the constitution is accepting the amendments our forefathers set for us to create the free country we want to continue to live in.