Category: Freedom

This paper analyses a movie review Freedom Writers. The movie discussed how a tutor and one-hundred and fifty students utilized education to transform themselves and the surrounding world. Actually, the debate was a true incident.

Freedom Writers was an account how Gruwell, a high school tutor, trained students who were perceived illiterate. In fact, Gruwell taught students using the book of Filopvic Zlata and Anne Frank in order to educate students about importance of open-mindedness.

Students countered such lectures through making notes in their dairies. Moreover, students learnt how to handle violence and other pessimistic issues in their lives. Students made notes based on analysis they derived from the book of Zlata Filopvic and Anne Frank.

Actually, the movie was significant in teaching performance for multicultural education in United States. America has experienced increase of international students who need to pursue high quality education.

In fact, such response called for educational reforms in order to support all students from different cultural backgrounds. Indeed, Gruwell employed instructional polices which empowered every student to attain open-mindedness.

Freedom Writers was a film that intended to promote multiracial social rights that called for integration of international social values. Actually, Swank Hilary represented Gruwell in the film as a high school teacher. Swank was disappointed when she realized that her students were unteachable.

Moreover, Swank emphasized integration policy in education. Unfortunately, assimilation of various ethnicities discouraged students who eventually declined to attend lectures (Bennett, 2010). In addition, Swank encountered challenges with her fellow teachers who never allowed her to use the book of Filopvic Zlata and Anne Frank.

In fact, Swank was advised to teach students on discipline issues only. Actually, Swank discouraged racism through mentoring students about Holocaust experiences to the Jews in Germany. In fact, Swank captured students attention that began to writes note in their dairies.

Moreover, Swank invited several Jewish survivors to share their experiences with students. Holocaust experience was so negative that many Jewish people suffered because of racial prejudice. Swank encouraged students to continue their studies post high school level (Bennett, 2010).

Swank also emphasized need for cultural integration. Actually, people should not repeat Holocaust experience when Nazi regime persecuted Jewish community because of racism.

According to Bennett, Swank emphasized on multicultural education to develop democracy (2010). Actually, multicultural education was focused to promote high quality of academic attainment to all learners.

Indeed, Swank thought that multicultural education would promote optimistic self-value through provision of insight concerning cultural background, past information and importance of diversified society (Bennett, 2010). In fact, multicultural education would build prospect of American community to be pluralistic in nature.

In the modern world, students came from diverse languages, collective and cultural settings. Actually, there was a need to promote English in the multicultural education since the language has been commonly used as a second language both in remote and town regions.

Moreover, Swank viewed that multicultural education would enhanced critical analysis while discouraging cultural inequality. In fact, Bennett viewed that multicultural education would reform education programs to provide learners with equal opportunity for learning experiences and employment opportunities (2010).

Actually, Swank stressed on multicultural education that would promote five objectives: cultural integration, development of insight processes, discouragement of prejudice, empowerment of social values, and equality in educational opportunities.

Indeed, Bennett expressed that multicultural education has developed a notion that learners and their cultural experiences and backgrounds simultaneously are key focus in multicultural education (2010).

Actually, such kind of education needs to be adopted in a social context which promotes an integrated perception of knowledge. Multicultural education was therefore a device for instilling learners with self-esteem and empowerment of special and varied cultural origins.

Furthermore, Swank viewed that multicultural education adopted globalization as a social tool that integrated human being from various cultural origins (Bennett, 2010). Indeed, multicultural education emerged as a need for globalization in the entire world.

Indeed, multicultural education has offered a fairer education atmosphere for international students. Moreover, such education was important to enable international students to easily get engaged in new environment.

In fact, such kind of integrated education enabled international students to get opportunities in order to develop their knowledge (Bennett, 2010). Furthermore, when teachers endeavored to promote multicultural education, international students would definitely receive global perspectives.

Conclusion

Hilary Swank acted such kind of the movie to influence people positively in order to develop open-mindedness that would embrace globalization.

The aim of multicultural education was to train teachers to give out an effectual and useful knowledge to all students. Indeed, multicultural education was focused to provide holistic and integrated kind of education to every student (internationally and domestically) with equal opportunity to acquire global knowledge, regardless of cultural origin.

Reference

Bennett, C. I. (2010). Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice. 7 ed. Boston: Pearson College Div.

Introduction

Although people cannot choose their ancestors, ethnicity as a social concept is believed to be optional. According to Waters (1996), belonging to a particular ethnos is a choice based on a belief in a common ancestry (p. 1).

The majority of White Americans have forebears of different European origins, allowing them to associate with their ethnicity voluntarily. However, this is not the case with racial minorities as they are deprived of the opportunity to choose their ethnic identity. The lack of this freedom, especially when compared to the white majority of the country, puts Blacks in an unprivileged position, because they treat their identity as involuntary. The inability to choose ones symbolic identity willingly results in adverse social outcomes for racial minority groups caused by strong opposition to white culture.

Symbolic Identity and Freedom of Choice

The ethnicities of many white Americans have changed across generations through changing allegiances and intermarriage, but the transformations also happen within the lifetime of an individual. Many people of European ancestry have the option to choose from different ethnicities and assume symbolic identities. The main feature of this identity is that it does not determine peoples lifestyle, social status, and economic opportunities unless they want it to have an impact. Such an identity is generally manifested through certain enjoyable aspects of ethnic behavior such as engaging in traditional holiday celebrations or preferring a particular national cuisine.

People who consider themselves as Dutch or Irish, for example, can manifest their ethnicity through entertainment, interests in specific cultures, and other activities that do not require any social costs. However, the crucial benefit that the white majority has is the freedom to assume no ethnic identity and regard themselves as white or American.

The freedom to identify themselves with different ethnicities varies for the whites and racial minorities. As race is manifested through physical features, people of African-American, Native American, Hispanic, or Asian origin cannot choose their ethnicity voluntarily. The problem with this is that not all identities are treated equally, and the long history of discrimination and oppression made different ethnicities seem more or less desirable. Thus, often the whites assume that all identities are equal and do not understand why racial minorities do not feel proud of the association with their race.

Imposed racial identity, unlike symbolic, significantly influences the way people live, who they marry, and with whom they communicate. The representatives of the minorities are not free to choose a symbolic ethnicity, so they consider their racial identity as socially enforced. The fact that the whites answer the question about their ethnicity with pride, while people of non-white origin view it as rude and offensive, proves that their ethnicities have different connotations. The process of identity development is more complicated for people of color, as they have less freedom and need to comply with enforced ethnicities.

Thus, the main outcome of inequality in the freedom to choose symbolic ethnicity is the development of so-called oppositional identities, which are defensive strategies of racial minorities against oppression.

Oppositional Identities

The inability to choose symbolic ethnicity and years of discrimination for enforced identity has developed the relationships of mistrust that ethnic minorities often feel towards the whites. People of color tend to respond to such treatment by developing a stronger affiliation with their ethnicity and rejecting the oppressors culture or so-called white ways. That is why black people at the Universities or schools often form groups and describe those who do not join them as devaluing and denying their very core identity (Waters, 1996, p. 4). Such defensive actions lead to the growth of the gap between the cultures and enhance mistrust.

The reasons behind the oppositional identity can be explained through the analysis of the voluntariness of choice. As Ogbu and Simons (1998) claim, people generally assume the status of a minority based on power relations between groups (p. 162). Thus, by having an imposed identity, people unwillingly put themselves in the subordinate power position. That is why the social status of involuntary minorities (enslaved, colonized, or conquered) differs from that of immigrants who voluntarily decided to become Americans. The latter tend to be more optimistic towards the white culture and assimilate more eagerly, while the former regard acculturation as a threat to their identity.

Such behavior has severe consequences for minorities as it increases the gap between ethnicities and poses a significant threat to achieving educational and economic goals. The problems in development occur due to the mistrust that people of color put in schools and universities, believing them to be white institutions. They often think they need to reject their identity to conform to the schools requirements, so they resist the whole education process. Adopting white ways means for them is a threat to their minority identity, so they prefer to oppose assimilation and follow the groups dominant patterns.

Conclusion

The ability to assume symbolic ethnicities that do not entail any social cost is a privilege of white Americans of European origin. However, this freedom is inaccessible to racial minorities as their ethnicities are imposed on them. Moreover, these identities are not symbolic as they determine the social status of people. As people of color cannot choose to disregard their race, they assume opposing identities. Such a strategy implies the rejection of assimilation and causes mistrust of white institutions. Thus, people of color reject development opportunities offered by schools and opportunities, considering them as those that threaten their identity.

Introduction

We live in time when many descendants of slave owners have come to realization of their historical guilt. However, only very few of them understand that such realization, on their part, draws practical consequences. It appears that the majority of White people in America are not quite ready to admit that, despite their strive to eradicate racism within themselves; they continue to act as subtle racists, simply because their higher socio-political status is being given to them by the very fact of their birth, thus endowing Whites with the sense of existential superiority, ever since the time of their childhood.

Main body

The reading of Toni Bambaras short story The Lesson, comes in particularly handy, within a context of one getting a mental grip of this fact, as it exposes American society continuing to remain classist in its very essence. While in the toy store, storys main character Sylvia gets to realize that many of the toys displayed on stores shelves cost way too much, such as $1195 toy sail-boat, made of fiber glass. Despite her young age, Sylvia senses that there is something utterly wrong with a simple toy costing that much: Whod pay all that when you can buy a sailboat set for a quarter at Pops, a tube of glue for a dime, and a ball of string for eight cents? It must have a motor and a whole lot else besides, I say. My sailboat cost me about fifty cents (Bambara). It is only by the time she grows up that Sylvia will begin to understand that in America, Whites and Blacks perceive the moneys worth differently. For the underprivileged Black person, who was born and raised in the hood, thousand dollars represent a treasure. This amount of money can buy the ghettos Black family of five enough groceries to last for a few months, whereas White degenerates can easily spend it on such non-essential things as toy sail-boat, with the thought that they should have given this money to Blacks never occurring to them. Another storys character, Miss Moore makes a perfectly good point when she refers to disproportionaly high prices in the toy store as indication of the fact that social inequality continues to affect the lives of underprivileged Americans: That this is not much of a democracy if you ask me. Equal chance to pursue happiness means an equal crack at the dough, dont it? (Bambara). White Liberals think that by indulging in politically correct rhetoric and by patronizing African-Americans they had succeeded in building a fair society in U.S. and that nothing stands on the way of turning America into multicultural utopia. Black Americans have a different opinion in this regard  it is only when Whites open up their wallets, so that Blacks would also be able to have their share of the dough, that they might be able to redeem their historical guilt. Nowadays, African-Americans continue to suffer from economically defined subtle racism, on the part of Whites, as the story The Lesson illustrates. While being eight years old, Sylvia cannot even dream of buying toys, possession of which, White kids take for granted. When she grows up, she will also not be able to dream of buying a house in White suburbia, for exactly the same reason  artificially erected economic barriers between Whites and Blacks. Therefore, we can say that despite the fact that Blacks were formally given equal rights with Whites, they cannot exploit their social freedoms to the full extent of this word, because of their inherited low social status. In its turn, this does not allow us to think of existence of racial equality in America other then a joke.

The same motif can be found in Langston Hughes poem Theme for English B, as poems narrator appears to be a socially alienated individual:

Its not easy to know what is true for you or me
at twenty-two, my age. But I guess Im what
I feel and see and hear, Harlem, I hear you:
hear you, hear me  we two  you, me, talk on this page

It is not by simple accident that Hughes talks of Harlem with deep affection. Apparently, it is only on the streets of ghetto that he feels comfortable, probably due to the fact that White Liberals, who strive to instill Blacks with the sense of self-respect, never risk making a personal appearance among the underprivileged, on whose behalf they continue to speak, while referring at suggestions to share some of their money with the underprivileged as ridiculous. It is important to note that in his poem, Hughes does not promote the concept of interracial integration. Quite contrary  he is happy being himself: I like to eat, sleep, drink, and be in love, while suggesting that there is no particular reason for Whites and Blacks to strive to embrace each other identity:

Being me, it will not be white.
But it will be
a part of you, instructor&
Sometimes perhaps you dont want to be a part of me.
Nor do I often want to be a part of you

In other words, author implies that he is quite comfortable with his racial identity and that he does not need to be educated to appreciate it. Youre older  and white  and somewhat more free says Hughes to his teacher, while implying that he does not perceive him as moral figure. Blacks do not need morals but freedom. Once they have a freedom, Whites will have no choice but to let go the part of the pie, they have been withholding solemnly for themselves. Given the results of last Presidential elections in America, it appears that Whites will not have to wait too long, before they would be forced to learn what it feels like walking in the shoes of second class citizens.

Bibliography

Bambara, Toni The Lesson. 1972. UC Davis University. 2008. Web.

Hughes, Langston Theme for English B. 1951. Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2008. Web.

Introduction

The term freedom of speech refers to being at liberty to express ones opinions, views, and opinions without any hindrance or fear of being punished. Even though there is freedom of speech as provided in the constitution of every country, regulations have been provided to guide it to ensure that no one abuses this right. Without these rules, other people might attempt to take the right so far as to destroy others. That is why freedom of speech has never been treated as absolute; the much-known restrictions are on the cases of incitements, defamation, blasphemy, conspiracy, and slander, just to mention a few (Harry & Richard, p. 47).

But even though the right of speech cuts across everyone under the sun, it needs to be revised and looked at differently when it comes to mentally ill persons. This is a group of people who are not in a position to put all their senses to use and reason like sane persons. It will be therefore unfair to punish them the same way a sane person could have been in case of a violation of the said regulations. Sentiments that fall under profanity should be fully considered a violation of the regulations guarding freedom of speech, thus tantamount to punishment under a court of law.

Regulations Guarding the Freedom of Speech

The regulations are meant to protect against the violation of other peoples rights. In most, if not all constitutions in every country, rights have been described as the carrying out of ones feelings, views, and opinions as stipulated within the law. But as much as we are carrying out this right, we are not supposed to be intervening in other peoples rights too. Incidences of defamation and obscenity have to be censured and considered a criminal offense instead of being taken as a right. Such kinds of speech of that nature are a threat to public interest since they may cause controversy and conflicts. Imagine a situation where the press has decided to talk ill of an individual, the number of people who will get the wrong information is great and that person might have his/her individuals interests damaged. Such speeches are classified under libel and slander [this category is limited by simply the threat of tort action]. Another category is that of profanity and obscenity that are regulated by the law because of their ability to inflict serious damage to society. It is therefore an overall feeling that this right provides a rationale, wide enough to allow for the recognition of freedom of speech as basic civil liberty&but the restrictions have to stand (Congressional Testimony, 1993).

Rights of the mentally ill

It is common knowledge that the mentally ill are not in a position to evaluate and assess what they are saying as opposed to their mentally upright counterparts, that is why the law limiting freedom of speech should be applied to them sparingly. They might not be aware that they are doing anything wrong when they go overboard with their speeches. A recommendation should be made by those in authority to put a clause in the constitution under the freedom of speech to allow for the right of the mentally ill to be preserved. This adjustment will ensure that the rules will not apply equally to people in all circumstances, but will define the persons condition i.e. state of mind.

Conclusion

From this essay, we can therefore conclude that as much as people exercise their freedom of speech, they have to be censored and boundaries were drawn for them to protect the interest of those that may be affected by such acts. Under international law, the right of speech is defined by several instruments of human rights as freedom of expression (Polenberg & Frederick, p. 198). [The term (expression) is mostly preferred since it draws less restriction and does not confine the right to verbal speech alone, but spreads to any such action in seeking or receiving any information regardless of the medium used]. To sum up, lets adopt Evelyn Beatrice Halls philosophy I might disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. So let us all support the freedom of speech but define the context in which it should be practiced and to who the restrictions will apply.

Work Cited

1. Congressional Testimony: The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression? Microsoft.com. 2008.
2. Harry Kalven, Jr & Richard: A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America (1988): 33-171.
3. Polenberg F. Faiths & Frederick Schauer: The Abrams Case, the Supreme Court, and Free Speech (1987): 122-314.

In the United States, as well as in many other developed and developing countries, the issues of freedom and security play an important role. People are involved in debates to understand if it is normal to sacrifice personal freedoms in order to stay safe. Regarding political demands and social norms, freedom and security become conflicting values when civil liberties have to be secretly eroded (Kristof, 2002). At the same time, people expect to be protected and experience safety under the protection of the government, and freedom turns out to be a synonym for security. Today, people get confused by the necessity to choose between freedom and security because of the unpredictable impact of the coronavirus situation. Citizens should spend months at home and be socially isolated to predict infection that could kill in a short period of time. Emergency measures have spread around the globe, justifying limitations on freedoms to promote health and safety. The use of the coronavirus excuse to challenge human rights and freedoms is characterized by double, either political or health, standards, but human safety is always a primary individual responsibility determined by certain external factors.

As history shows, it is usually enough for one event to happen or one person to ask a question in order to provoke a new debate that lasts forever. In 2001, the September 11 attacks solved as a solid basis for the government and American citizens to understand the worth of freedom and security in the country. A single event led to a line of solutions and interventions under which civil liberties were steamrolled, and American traditions were betrayed (Kristof, 2002). Political leaders found it necessary to take immediate steps and punish those who planned several terrorist attacks that resulted in about 3000 lives and multiple injuries. In a moment, all Muslim friends and neighbors became enemies and betrayers who could put this life at risk. The idea of being free could not be associated with safety issues anymore, and attention to civil liberties would hardly prevent another attack. According to Kristof (2002), it is wrong to imprison innocent people to achieve material purposes. Although this activity does not destroy freedoms to promote safety, it may question the worth of human choices and the appropriateness of values.

The controversies between freedom and security continue growing with time, especially during the period of Edward Snowden. In 2013, this young man revealed his legacy and made copies of the information a Central Intelligence Agency was able to gather about people with the help of the eavesdropping program (Haynes, 2015). It was a real shock for people to realize that all their lives could be observed by the government. If the government could investigate society, it is necessary to provide society with similar opportunities. Haynes (2015) is correct, saying that power corrupts, and each time, a person has enough reasons to be afraid of something. The story of Snowden proves that the desire to create a safe and protected environment has its price. Many people define their government as overweening and unfair because of the necessity to address secret strategies and make unethical decisions (Haynes, 2015; Kristof, 2002). However, they also think that it is the responsibility of the political leaders to protect society. The American government is already aware of possible losses and benefits, but there is still no answer to the question whether freedom or security should prevail.

Today, the situation when people have to choose between their freedom and safety has been considerably challenged because of the coronavirus situation. On the one hand, the spread and the outcomes of the virus are impressive, and millions of people, either ordinary citizens, or healthcare workers, or political leaders, show their unpreparedness. Governments impose disproportionate restrictions on human activities, exchange of information, and social distancing (Funk & Linzer, 2020). The main explanation for this decision is the necessity to predict the virus and control mortality ratings. People, in their turn, think that the authorities find it effective to use the COVID-19 situation to suppress populations, challenge business, and question freedoms (Funk & Linzer, 2020). Today, the positions of citizens differ as someone believes that the government does everything possible to keep safety and order, but some groups consider changes as another political provocation. Information technology progress, social media impact, and achievements in health care and medicine do not help to support human freedom and safety. As a result, similar debates, unclear positions, and controversies arise, dividing families, communities, and nations.

Despite the intention to create common norms, every person is always free to develop individual beliefs. I am one of those who think that honesty and open-mindedness are frequently underestimated. I do not want to live in a world where honesty becomes a synonym of weakness or inability. I consider open-mindedness as a chance to learn something new. I create my life in a way that I have nothing to hide. If there are politically approved organizations to check my phone calls, I do not mind if they do it to be sure I am not a threat to my country. I could have enemies and think about revenge, but all this is on a personal level and does not require serious punishment. It is my life, and I am free to do everything I want. I do nothing wrong to society at the national level and let the government see it, as well as the intention of people around me. If social isolation is a means to save human lives, I am ready to follow restrictions, not at the expense of my freedoms but to enhance my health and safety.

To reduce concerns about freedom and safety, it is necessary to stop comparing them. Freedom is a possibility to do what people want and when they want, and if there is no threat to human life, freedoms are never restricted. Many people cannot even realize that what they actually do is not to be free but to be protected. Subconsciously, it is normal to strive for safety, not for freedom. I do not want to rush to extremes like to live in jail and be safe or live on an island and be exposed to natural disasters. Freedom and safety are available to people, and the role of the government is not to break the balance and keep everything in order. If I need to spend several months in isolation to keep healthy and reduce the health crisis, I am glad to make this contribution and support society. If the national security should check my email to predict another terrorist attack, I could live with this fact. However, if no attempt is made to promote security, I am not sure how long I would live and enjoy freedom.

References

Funk, A. & Linzer, I. (2020). How the coronavirus could trigger a backslide on freedom around the world. Washington Post.

Haynes, D. D. (2015). Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Kristof, N. D. (2002). Security and freedom. New York Times. Web.

The 19th century is characterized by women discrimination in society, whereby the role of women is to offer basic services at home. Female prejudice increased during the 1800s, leading to the drawing of occupational lines regarding the exact jobs that women and men could handle. As a result, women commenced feeling underrated and ignored in the making of critical family and societal decisions, hence yearning for independence. In marriages, women were seen as unequal partners whose role is to take orders from their husbands (Ahmed 1). Therefore, the 1894 short story The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin develops an understanding regarding the 19th-century women oppression, reflecting the present challenges that women face in society, hence cherishing any little freedom.

Notably, domestic duties and insignificant employment opportunities were the women occupations in the past, and it can be traced in the contemporary society. According to Hughes, it was rare and unheard in some occasion for women to work alongside their brothers, husbands, and other inner family members in managing a business (1). The short story The Story of an Hour develops the role of women understanding in the community vividly, whereby the narrator presents Louise Mallard comfortably seated at her home. In contrast, Brently, her husband, has gone to his workplace (Chopin 7). Holistically, the role of women is critically established, showing that during the 19th century, white-collar jobs were for men while domestic duties were solely done for females. Ahmed mentions that the present obstacle women are facing is an evolution of the past oppression whereby women could not climb to top occupational seats (1). There are fewer women in the upper jobs, including president and leaders of critical parastatals as opposed to men. Connectedly, Chopins text presents an understanding regarding the diverse challenges that women were facing since the 19th century, calamities that are in existence even now.

Additionally, women faced significant oppression in their respective marriages during the 19th century, making them feel desperate. According to Hughes, the rights and freedoms of women were infringed, for example, the right to vote (1). Similarly, the rejoicing that Louise Mallard develops when she gets the news that her husband is dead, critically exemplify oppression. Louise opines that she is free while staring at the outside trees when she is in the bedroom (Chopin 21). Arguably, her words develop a comprehension regarding the different challenges and oppression that women were going through in the society of the nineteenth century. Ahmed adds that women are presently facing family oppression, whereby they must balance between motherhood and occupation, and subsequently expected to deliver the same way that their male counterparts deliver (2). Mothers are expected to coordinate family chores and equally manage their occupation without an error, which is sometimes hectic to attain. Unlike in the past where women were feeling lonely because of interaction restrictions, presently, women are oppressed by the high and duo duties, expected to deliver highly as men.

Besides, women in marriages do not necessarily face physical abuse and violence but also go through high degrees of psychological torture. Ahmed alludes that the emotional torture that women undergo is hazardous equal and even surpasses domestic violence (2). Married women were suffering underneath in the past and even continue to suffer in the present world voicelessly. Understandably, Josephine and Louises friend, Richards, seem to see that everything between Louise and Brentlys marriage is perfect even after her death. When Louise goes into her room fantasizing and even shouting how she has found freedom, both Josephine and Richards think that she is crying for the death of her lovely husband (Chopin 26). Inwardly, Louise is happy that the long-awaited freedom has finally come, whereby she will never have someone to bother her when deciding to go out and meet her friends. It is at this point that the audience comprehends that she has emotional stress and torture despite not fighting with her husband physically. Hence, women in the past and even today are facing great emotional torment as opposed to physical abuse.

Furthermore, married women in the 19th century were alienated their rights to independence, a significant form of oppression. According to Hughes, males dictated everything that could happen in the family and the real way that their wives need to conduct themselves before them and society (4). Chopin presents this analogy when she develops a picture of Louise Mallard not wanting her sister to enter her room and console her after the death of her husband, Brently (28). The reason behind her objection is that she feels good when she is alone, viewing how the outside environment is beautiful and not stressed. Louise pictures how she will live comfortably without her husband, an indication that she has obtained the required independence. It is at this point that Hughes mentions that men were undermining the rights and freedoms of their wives during the ninetieth century (3). Whatever that women wanted to do, whether, within the family or society, husbands were huge obstacles. Therefore, women in marriage faced colossal obstacles and embedment from men, in the 1800s.

Moreover, women had no alternative to evade the subjugation awaiting them in society. At the moment Louise Mallard sees her husband at the doorstep, she collapses, and the doctors denounce her death, claiming that it is the joy that has killed her (Chopin 37). Louises experience demonstrates the fact that women had limited options during the 19th century. Symbolically, the death of Louise presents a critical comprehension that the only option that females had in the 1800s to evade oppression from men was to kill themselves. As long as they are alive, they are subject to the coercion of their husbands and the male-chauvinism and society that applauds male egocentrism. Hughes focuses on an ancient society where men commanded respect, equating women to children, expecting them to act like angels in the house (4). In other words, wives were to embrace obedience to their husbands apart from coordinating different household chores. Thus, societal oppression was like a culture, whereby every woman in society had to face it during the ninetieth century.

In conclusion, it is paramount to note that the short story The Story of an Hour develops a comprehensive picture pertaining to the respect, regard, and honor that women received in marriage and society. Through Kate Chopins piece, the audience develops a critical reflection about the challenges that ladies are facing in marriage presently. Louise Mallard, in the text, is a vivid example of the different emotional challenges and abuses that women face in marriages, hence requiring independence and rejoicing freedom anytime it comes. Her decision to celebrate and project how her life will be better after receiving information that Brently is dead explicitly symbolizes the suffering that women are going through in their marriages. However, they opt to stay in the relationship instead of divorcing. Above all, there is a need for couples to embrace dialogue and mutual understanding to discuss different issues affecting their relationship.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Fairuz. Gender Inequality and Oppression of Women: A Survivors Story. Inter Press Service. 2020.

Chopin, Kate. The Story of an Hour. Jimcin Recordings. 1894.

Hughes, Kathryn. Gender Roles in the 19th Century. Discovering Literature: Romantics and Victorians. British Library, 2014, 1-6.

Freedom of speech seems an inalienable human right that cannot be restricted or taken away because it determines the ability to express and broadcast opinions and experiences. In reality, however, freedom of speech cannot be unlimited because individuals live in a society that sets the limits of acceptable speech. It is recognized that free speech must be restricted if an individuals words are harmful to public health or affect the freedoms of another person. This essay assesses the significance of adequately limiting free speech for modern society.

Humanity has struggled throughout history to figure out what is meant by free speech and what the limits of what is permissible are. The origins of the concept of freedom of speech go back to ancient Greece, where the first principles of a democratic society were formulated (Shammas, 2019). Already in new times, in 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, postulating the inalienable rights of individuals to protect the dignity of the individual (Balsera, 2019). Freedom of speech should be understood as the moral and political fundamental right of the individual to freedom of expression and opinion without fear of persecution by government or opposition groups (Kendrick, 2018). Thus, freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions virtually unhindered and feel safe.

In reality, however, freedom of speech must be limited because it may conflict with the communitys moral values. It is well known that an individuals freedom ends where anothers freedom begins (BRI, 2021). Hence, freedom of speech cannot imply insulting or humiliating others because punishment would follow. Furthermore, the expression of sharply radical, unacceptable ideas to the community is also a negative characteristic of free speech because it allows painful ideas to spread. For example, encouraging the 9/11 attacks and rejoicing over the deaths of thousands of people while reflecting freedom of speech is a publicly condemned morality and signifies support for terrorists.

On the other hand, there is the opposite view. Restricting freedom of speech is not acceptable because it inhibits the individuals creative expression and creates conditions for the monopolization of opinions. Restriction of freedom of speech is associated with the action of propaganda and the enforcement of a single paradigm in the end. For example, the example of the execution of Giordano Bruno, who openly opposed erroneous public opinion even though he was right, is illustrative (Krylov, 2021). In this case, the restriction of freedom of speech served to make a historically incorrect, biased decision.

It is important not to substitute concepts and understand that allowing absolute freedoms of speech can lead to anarchism and wars. Restricting free speech allows nations to remain stable, as with ecclesiastical society in Brunos era. Moreover, the individuals creative expression is not realized through insulting others or adhering to radical views, for this leads to the destruction of society. Thus, a restriction is a forced measure aimed at ensuring public safety.

References

Balsera, M. B. (2019). Human rights: Universal, inalienable and indivisible. Actionaid. Web.

BRI. (2021). Bill of Rights (1791) [PDF document]. Web.

Kendrick, L. (2018). Use your words: On the speech in freedom of speech. Michigan Law Review, 116(5), 667-704.

Krylov, A. I. (2021). The peril of politicizing science. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 12(22), 5371-5376. Web.

Shammas, V. L. (2019). The parrhesia of neo-fascism. International Journal of }i~ek Studies, 13(3), 1-14.

The body: the freedom of speech and its limits

Freedom of speech has been accepted as a universal and essential right of every human being (Belavusau, 2013). It is obvious, however, that the rights of one person should not violate the rights of another person. Therefore, the right of expressing our mind entails a responsibility: we should assess our words, bearing in mind the consequences that may follow.

Freedom of speech in the US is guaranteed by the Constitution or, namely, by the First Amendment (Belavusau, 2013). This right is closely connected to the freedom of expression, although the latter entails the freedom of finding or expressing ones opinion in any form and through any medium (Belavusau, 2013). The importance of these rights can hardly be overestimated. It cannot be denied that the freedom of speech is truly essential from the point of view of progress, especially when science is concerned, and this simple truth does not seem to raise objections (Powers, 2011). However, the issue can grow more controversial.

The reasons for the existing limits of freedom of speech are understandable. It is clear why information about child pornography should not be distributed or why copyright is not supposed to be violated. Yet, there are more difficult questions. For example, obscene or hate speeches are also not protected by the First Amendment. Still, how do you define obscenity? Of course, there exists the Miller test of the US Supreme Court (Belavusau, 2013). But how accurate is it in defining the boundaries of this vague term? Due to such situations, the limits of freedom of speech are being continuously questioned. The necessity of this right, however, can hardly cause doubts.

There exists several books about the dystopian worlds of the future where there is no right to speak freely, but I would rather use another example. In January 2015 twelve people who worked in a satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed for the publications of disrespectful cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad (Penketh, 2015). It is not surprising that a satirical magazine in the middle of Europe (France) finds it possible to publish cartoons of different political and religious figures. It is perfectly natural for a country where people are granted the right to express their opinion freely and through any means. Of course, it is also a well-known fact that the adherers of Islam take their religion very seriously and find it difficult to joke about their prophets. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Islam world found the cartoons extremely offensive and, before the attack, it would be fitting to criticize the magazine for disregarding other peoples rights and feelings, even though they had the right to act this way. Yet, the violent reaction that involved killing people changed the situation completely. It is an example of what we may expect from a world without the freedom of speech, and it is not a passage from Fahrenheit 451 or Nineteen Eighty-Four, but a tragedy that took place in Europe less than a year ago.

The conclusion: thesis statement confirmed

The only logical conclusion I could make is that the balance between right and responsibility in respect to the freedom of speech is particularly difficult to find. Perhaps it is impossible to truly regulate this kind of rights on the legislative level and to walk this tightrope we should address our human decency. Still, there is no denying the fact that the freedom of speech is an essential unalienable right of every human being that should be respected and protected by the government since the alternative is indeed too horrible to imagine.

References

Belavusau, U. (2013). Freedom of speech. New York, NY: Routledge.

Penketh, A. (2015). Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad. TheGuardian. Web.

Powers, E. (2011). Freedom of speech. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press.

Introduction

Freedom and security are two essential elements of society but guaranteeing one is often associated with violating the other. Considering the threats that the US is facing, security appears vital to some. However, others argue that freedom is more important for the success of the nation. This paper aims to discuss two opposite views on which is more important: security or freedom, and provide examples of violations of both aspects.

Main body

Given the multidimensional nature of security that includes physical, economic, and political aspects, one should consider its importance for the nation. According to Farrell and Newman (2019), after the September 11 attacks, security in the US was taken to another level, and more protective measures were implemented in terms of border control and airport safety. Guaranteeing the citizens welfare should be a priority to prevent life losses and threats. On the other hand, an issue of personal information misuse arises as the technology develops, and more data is collected and stored by the government and various companies. Invading freedom can be considered a violation of human rights. Facebook  Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018 is an example of an outrageous data breach that caused a big debate on personal information and freedom. In this regard, while the government should improve the nations security, the citizens liberty should not be taken away. I believe that freedom is fundamental and more enduring as there are always new threats arising that need to be dealt with.

Conclusion

To sum up, security is essential, but freedom is just as important for the nations thriving. While the government is tasked with providing a safe environment for the citizens, it should not abuse their fundamental rights. Doing the opposite and overusing the power the government upholds means betraying its essence of ensuring the nations well-being. Therefore, there is a need to find a balance between the two elements.

Reference

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Of privacy and power: The transatlantic struggle over freedom and security. Princeton University Press.

Human Freedom and the Self is a paper written by Roderick M. Chisholm in the middle of the 20th century. The authors main idea is to discuss determinism and libertarian beliefs, relying on human actions, attitudes, and knowledge. In this paper, the first nine sections about deterministic and indeterministic views will be summarized and evaluated to create an introduction to the topic of human freedom.

Summary

In the beginning, the problem of human freedom is discussed. Determinists believe that every event is caused by another event. Indeterminists consider every act as essential without any particular cause. The second section contains an example of true human responsibilities. People try to do what they do to experience comfort. All at once, God is defined as the Prime Mover. The author explained the compatibility of determinism and moral responsibility. This section underlines the worth of options and human decisions. Conflicts between responsibility and deterministic behaviors cannot be ignored anymore. In the next section, Chisholm suggested avoiding determinism and indeterminism. Fortuity, caprice, or luck may lead to certain human actions. This possibility is another contribution to the discussion about freedom. The fifth section highlights that something else may guide people. The nature of agents and humans has to be recognized. The role of the man is the reason for determinism. At the same time, inanimate objects may be the causes. The terms of transeunt and immanent causation improve the discussion. References to Aristotle strengthen the discussion of possibilities and choices.

The brain function theme is touched in the seventh section. Cerebral events happen, causing new actions taken by a person. The connection between immanent causation and transeunt causation is strong. The next section contributes to the same discussion about causation. New conditions occur and challenge an understanding of human actions. Chisholm was confident that different agents might cause an event. Therefore, the focus of the ninth section is immanent causation. External and internal factors influence the nature of human decisions. The reader has to recognize the worth of immanent causation.

Critical Evaluation

After the reading of the paper created by Chisholm, I would like to admit that the progress of human thought cannot be ignored. On the one hand, I agree with the author that human actions have to be evaluated from the deterministic point of view. On the other hand, I think that the idea of human freedom is more complex today than it was several years ago. Some people do not find it necessary to develop a particular attitude towards their freedoms. Still, many people cannot imagine their lives without the intention to become free. At the same time, there are many external factors that determine the human choice.

Chisholm questioned if a person should be responsible for his or her beliefs and desires. Unfortunately, modern people are exposed to a variety of sources of information (external factors). The human desire to learn as much as possible and be aware of news, trends, and each others lives make them dependent on multiple factors. Therefore, Chisholms idea that action can neither be deterministic nor indeterministic is not appropriate for a modern person like me. The position to underline the connection between immanent causation and transeunt causation seems to be suitable and effective in todays world. Almost all human actions are caused by something, either by agent, event, or even supreme power (God or fate). I cannot say that Human Freedom and the Self is a paper where absolutely correct thoughts are introduced, but there are many interesting positions and statements that may help people facilitate their lives and gain a better understanding of their freedoms.

Conclusion

Chisholm developed a number of strong ideas about determinism, libertarianism, and the identification of the self in society. It is in human nature to support the idea of free will. The chosen nine sections of Human Freedom and the Self prove that everything is inevitable, and people with their thoughts, actions, and desires are the internal part of a physical world with its orders and legitimacy.

References

Chisholm, R. M. (1964). Human Freedom and the Self