Where We Stand: Thirty Reasons For Loving Our Country
No right is truly unlimited journalist Roger Rosenblatt would argue. Author Rosenblatt narrates “everyone loves free expression as long as it isn’t exercised” (501) in “We Are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid and Dead” as part from his essay collection titled Where We Stand: Thirty Reasons for Loving Our Country published in 2002. Rosenblatt informs his audience about the very controversial and objectionable value of freedom of expression, and what negative costs can ultimately stem from censoring language. Rosenblatt uses his credibility where he appeals to the every man/women reader’s emotions and logic criticizing any censorship on free expression, emphasizes the defending right on freedom of speech given by the Constitution. However, Rosenblatt includes many examples of the limitations placed on our free expression. Rosenblatt successfully engages
…show more content…
He feels we praise freedom of speech but when somebody says or does something that we cannot accept we feel anger and become impractical. He describes some scenarios of how people expressed their values freely, and attempts to get the reader to understand and support his same values through these examples. He goes on further believing it is a contradiction to have freedom of speech as a right but get penalized when we exercise that right. Ultimately Rosenblatt feels there should be absolutely no censorship and absolute freedom of expression. Rosenblatt begins by pointing out “everyone loves free expression as long as it isn’t exercised” (501). Rosenblatt then sets a very emotional tone for the rest of the article appealing to the reader’s emotions and feelings. He does this in order to build his argument against censorship on expression. Rosenblatt then adds “the Founding Fathers had actually meant it when they allowed someone to do something that would outrage the rest of us” (501). This contends Rosenblatt’s argument of free
He feels we praise freedom of speech but when somebody says or does something that we cannot accept we feel anger and become impractical. He describes some scenarios of how people expressed their values freely, and attempts to get the reader to understand and support his same values through these examples. He goes on further believing it is a contradiction to have freedom of speech as a right but get penalized when we exercise that right. Ultimately Rosenblatt feels there should be absolutely no censorship and absolute freedom of expression. Rosenblatt begins by pointing out “everyone loves free expression as long as it isn’t exercised” (501). Rosenblatt then sets a very emotional tone for the rest of the article appealing to the reader’s emotions and feelings. He does this in order to build his argument against censorship on expression. Rosenblatt then adds “the Founding Fathers had actually meant it when they allowed someone to do something that would outrage the rest of us” (501). This contends Rosenblatt’s argument of free