Sleep Donation By Karen Russel

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).

I think the sleepwalker statue should be removed from the campus. The lifelike statue is an amazing artwork, but should not be on any college campus. The statue does not look presentable or appropriate for where it is now. The statue should have never been allowed to stay on the campus as long as it has; the creator of the statue did not ask for permission to place his statue on the campus. The statue should have been removed from the campus or sent to an art museum after students expressed they were uncomfortable with the statue. A petition was signed by more than 500 supporters to help the students’ argument to get rid of the “sleepwalker”. The statue might have been more acceptable at a college with both women and men.

The right to speak freely is additionally a fundamental supporter to the American faith in government restricted by an arrangement of balanced governance, working as a limitation on oppression, debasement and awkwardness. For a great part of the world's history, governments, taking after the motivation portrayed by Justice Holmes, have

The freedom to say what you want without fear that it counters someone’s belief and cause them to react in a violent way is a core value of the definition of freedom on this paper. The first amendment values this in the United States yes, but the people do not in this world, since humans have a tendency to want to only hear what they believe is correct keeping them in a safe bubble of same-think. Such as in the passage named “The Briefcase” by Rebecca Makka, where a man who was only a chef was taken through violence by having a place where people could criticize the government and talk about revolutionary ideas. In this story, it is explained how seriously people can take other’s words. Whether the words offend them, or if the words are meant to throw them off their power because they are being corrupt and living a lifestyle that only benefits them and not the people that the rulers were set to rule.

I’ve not had the pleasure of reading a nonfiction book as intriguing and enjoyable as David K. Shipler’s Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword in a long time. The pages brought to life stories of secrecy and conspiracy, of authority and rebellion, and of missteps by public figures readers like myself often only get an outsider’s glimpse of. After first reading the introduction, however, I wasn’t sure how I felt; I couldn’t fully grasp what Shipler was saying and was concerned that the rest of the book would elicit similar feelings. Thankfully, those fears were alleviated only pages into Part I: Books. I found Shipler’s style of writing incredibly engaging and easy to follow, and the case studies were both interesting and new to

Jon Lovett is a screenwriter and former speechwriter for president Obama. Most recently he was serving as a producer of the award-winning HBO series The Newsroom, and is also the co-creator and head writer of 2012 sitcom 1600 Penn on NBC. In Lovett’s speech “The Culture of Shut Up” he believes that too many debates deteriorate into misplaced rage, or discouraging free speech. Lovett believes that all the chaos that comes with free speech is worth it, rather than letting a few voices speak for the millions of people in the United States. Through his use of precise examples and his accessible style, Lovett presents a clear and convincing argument in favor of letting Americans have free speech without the worry of what comes with it.

Philosophers state in unison that the freedom of expression is inevitably one the most powerful possessions a person can have. But, those who are open with their opinions are often times ridiculed. Their voices, ideas, and experiences are brushed off and silenced. When people are shut down in this manner, there may be devastating effects. These consequences are known as the silencing effect. People may begin to question most of the things they feel and will tend to believe their thoughts invalid due to the fact that others disagree. This is when people begin to shut down and

From Martin Luther King Junior to Mahatma Gandhi, the most influential social leaders understood the power of peaceful protest and advancing the world through effective debate. Despite their example, Lukianoff accurately displays that the power of citizens as well as students has been employed to dissuade speakers with controversial perspectives from sharing the state of their American mind. Not only is this concept dangerous to the second amendment but to society as a whole. By handpicking which viewpoints are expressed in any environment we create citizens who are unable to handle constructive criticism or debate to advance everyone’s understanding.

The first character that I would like to enlighten upon regarding this quote is, Dr. Kaufman. Personally, I believe that the words that this individual has a difficult time uttering is, his belief that Joe Slater, a man suspected of murder is innocent. To begin with, I have concluded to this stance, for the reason that this doctor, seemed to be the mere savior, that had a glimpse of optimism and certainty that this gentleman, did not slay his family throughout the first chapter, “Beyond the Wall of Sleep”. For further explanation, Dr. Kaufman through the tone of his words seems to feel empathy to protect Mr. Slater from his death, as hinted when said, “that fateful night I was widely agitated and perturbed, for despite the excellent care he had received, Joe Slater was unmistakably dying”.

With all these truths, and the freedom to speak them, comes the question of who should hold the power and ability to speak their minds. In the United States, our society believes everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, to voice thoughts and opinions. Written down in the constitution is the promise to citizen rights, to all peoples who want to exercise those rights. “It was we the people; not we, the white male citizens,” who built up our nation and society, and the promise to freedom of speech (Anthony, par. 4). Women, children, teens, those of color should all be able to speak freely, to give shape to the opinions they hold like all the empowered men that speak freely. Not all governments and nations feel the same about this. In Singapore, they have their “own standards of social order as reflected in [their] laws” (Reyes, par. 3). Different nations feel differently about human rights and laws as presented by the United States, including freedom of speech, whether it is safe for everyone to speak their minds or just best to keep it to those who are fed lies from those of a higher position.

Obviously, people have a right to state their opinions. Opinions that may be hateful; opinions that many would consider morally wrong; opinions that are the fuel for stereotyping, discrimination, and the condemnation of things that shouldn’t be condemned. But it’s a free country, right? So don’t these people have the right to say these terrible things, without repercussions? I have opinions on opinions, and this paper is a great way to learn about them. To be brutally honest, most people’s opinions on most things do not matter, in some cases there is actually a ‘right’ opinion, and having the freedom to say what you want doesn't free you from the consequences of what you say.

On this world today free speech has been a standout amongst the most battled after rights in the United Conditions of America. The right to speak freely was received on December 15, 1791. The right to speak freely is secured by the main correction in the Constitution of United States, which is the privilege to explain one’s suppositions and thoughts without dread of government countering or control, or societal endorse. Free discourse is imperative in the public arena since we are allowed to create as individuals and end up noticeably mindful of what is happening around us. The right to speak freely played an extremely vital part in how and our identity today and is the principle motivation behind why we

Faith. Listed as a strong belief in God. A majority of believers in religions start with a strong faith in God when their lives are normal and nothing bad is going on. Most people start with hope and innocence that they are optimistic about the religion in which the believer has just joined. Before reading Sharma’s short story, “Surrounded by Sleep”, coming from a practicing religious family I have learned that people expect things from God just because here that God brings on good things to other people that they should receive good things too, they monger for good things to happen to them. People expect that God will give them a good life if they practice their faith well enough. After reading the short story it was easy to see that the same thing happened to the characters.

The first amendment of freedom of speech can be a great thing and an awful thing if left to free. An important lesson that a young woman learned when she was beaten for using her freedom of speech to say that everybody should have the right to equal free speech. This is something the Americans are proud of, however, if we look closely not all free speech is equal and there are several examples where it is denied to everyone. This example also shows that if there is unrestricted freedom of speech, it can quickly lead to chaos and violence. According to Nat Hentoff’s article ‘Restrictions Against Offensive Speech Harms Society” George Orwell says, “if large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it” (2). Author Hentoff pointed out that since the freedom of speech is the First Amendment, the consequences of people’s speech should not be restricted, but he did not realize that if people always say whatever they want to say and do whatever they want do, society will be turbulent. When everybody speaks offensively, society will become a dangerous environment.