The First Amendment In The Bill Of Rights By Walter Lippmann

“ ‘I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it’ ” (Lippmann 14-15). Voltaire’s statement explains that even though he disagrees with an opinion, he will defend the entitlement of freedom of speech. In Walter Lippmann’s essay “The Indispensable Opposition,” his argument on freedom of speech is that American society should value and tolerate others opinions because it is necessary in a civilized society. Utilizing rhetorical strategies such as diction, parallelism, and the use of personal pronouns; he emphasizes his stance on liberty of opinion.

What was Charles Beard’s view of the Constitution? How does that view compare to the traditional secondary school textbook view? Be specific. Beard’s view of the Constitution was that it was made by people in the upper and middle classes in order to create a strong federal government that could be used to their advantage. He stated how this would help them since a strong federal government could be used to force the lower classes to pay more money while the upper classes received power and protection.

The audience were both loyalists who were unsure in joining the American rebels who were leaning towards the side of the loyalists that it was written in such a way that common people could interpret concepts and to promote the rebellion. The technique was to use what he thought was "common sense" to persuade people into believing what he expected to be an obvious thing. His argument is for American independence which begins with theoretical reflections about government and religion which furthermore progresses into the specifics of the colonial situation. He distinguishes between society and government; society to him is constructive whereas government is represented as an institution. He saw that the global significance of the American struggle for independence was human rights and freedom.

Walter Lippman’s article “The Indispensable Opposition” is a criticism of society’s failure to support political freedom and the freedom of speech in America. Lippman’s article is written with beautiful diction, artful syntax, examples, and appeals to the audience. With the expert use of all of these rhetorical choices, Lippman truly displays the “opposition” in America over freedoms. Lippman’s article is written in such a professional way. His word voice is complicated but isn’t complicated to the point where it can be misunderstood.

Adding on, Roosevelt elaborates these words so as to hinder the audience and make them support the government achieving an ideal nation, which would have diverse abilities and bright future for every generation, and persuade them to preserve their spirit by America engaging in the Second World War. As shown above, Roosevelt repetitively expresses the most significant duty that the citizens have to achieve American’s dream and forces his audience to have a sense of responsibility. Accordingly, as he establishes his point about achieving the nation’s goal, he elaborates assertion by describing it as “an ideal which in itself has gained stature and clarity with each generation” and “our strong propose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy. We do not retreat we go forward, in the service of our

Comparing communism to a shipwreck in a metaphor, Bush again reaches the patriotic hearts of residents, yet he alluded to the frailty of the Homefront with, “we have seen our vulnerability — and we have seen its deepest source…” (Bush’s inaugural address 4), this use of pathos also connects the audience to the orator and produces sentiment. Though Bush reply’s heavily on building his ethos rather than pathos, with text saying, “we are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world” (Bush’s inaugural address 5) and “my most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats” (Bush’s inaugural address 10), creditably is gained; it was intentionally mentioned of Bush’s role as the leader of the free world and his goal to apply the American influence on other countries.

He provides positive aspects of their country and gives them assurance that the United States will overcome its struggles for equal voting rights. Through these quotes, it is able to be understood how connotative diction can impact one's speech and supply support from the speaker's

This gives us the ability to interpret and develop our own limits to free speech. As we establish our own meaning, the United States’ method of determining the limits of free speech. The “clear and present danger” test shows how new ways are being developed to limit our free speech. Boggling the mind of the reader, we are forced to realize that if we truly had free speech then why are methods being developed to limit it. Well, according to the United States’ treatment to Charles Schenck, freedom of speech was restricted if an individual was a “clear and present danger”.

In “The Indispensable Opposition”, Walter Lippmann writes that respecting others freedom of speech is difficult, but it must be done. He informs the readers that freedom of opinion is of the utmost importance in society, and that the freedom of others is our own vital necessity. He persuades readers by using powerful diction to set the tone, periodic sentences, and juxtaposition. Lippmann uses diction to emphasize his point, in that he uses multiple words to draw the reader's attention.

If the 1st amendment never came to pass then the U.S. and most likely the world would be much different. The U.S. would probably be more focused on maintaining the Christian religion to the point of war. Which will leave the U.S. very vulnerable and we will definitely not be the land of the free. In regards to the most recent presidential election, I believe there needs to be a mandatory test you have to pass in order to vote.

David E. Vandercoy’s 1994 article, “The History of the Second Amendment,” appeared originally as 28 Val. L. Rev. 1007-1039 in Valparaiso University Law Review. Long overlooked, the Second Amendment has become the entity of some study and much discussion. The United States is the first country of its kind because of strong minded men and women who fought against all odds David E. Vandercoy (1994) addresses the history of the Second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent; not suggesting it is controlling. He quotes George Washington about how in order to preserve the rest of liberty, depending on the situation and circumstance, individuals entering into society must give up a share of it.

The first amendment of the United States Constitution is a crucial topic that guarantees fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and association. The first amendment protects the freedom of association, which emcompasses an individual’s right to join and leave groups as they please, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the common interest of the individuals in the group. The history of the freedom of association can be traced back to the founding of the United States, where the right of association was seen as a necessary component of democracy. The freedom of association can be explored into its history, the basis of the topic, and the interpretation of the courts, especially in cases; Gitlow v. New York, NAACP

While contrasting opinions should be allowed, there has to be a line that can determine the differences between expressing opinions or influencing negative thoughts on others. However, once the specifications have been put on the expression of ideas, a citizen should still be able to find their freedom of speech as “the most cherished founding principle of the nation’s identity” (Gaudefroy 1). Rules should not restrict a group's efforts to defy unjustifiable laws. Our freedom of speech has to continue to be an important resource that is available to all citizens. Failure to comply with the citizen’s ideas would create

He does so specifically with examples that resonate with the audience. For instance, as he attempts to persuade listeners to consider revolting against the government, he uses a real-life example: All men recognize... the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution Of '75... when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.