Advertisin Anne Applebaum's The Decline Of American Press Freedom

Improved Essays
When people hear the word freedom, all kinds of definitions and perceptions come to mind. The most common definition is the given right to say and do anything. This definition is too vague and can be interpreted the wrong way, so there should be some restrictions on what people say and do. Any act that is illegal or life-threatening should never be justified when someone uses their right to freedom. However, restrictions such as censorship, political correctness, and behavioral advertising all take away the right to freedom from everyone. These restrictions are understandable and reasonable to a fault, but can go too far. Censorship and political correctness will silence people entirely and behavioral advertising invades privacy with stalking, thus taking away someone’s freedom to use the internet without judgment. Censorship, political correctness, and behavioral …show more content…
Applebaum argues that if something is not offensive, then it should be allowed to get posted and shared. The cartoon Applebaum discusses was not believed to have offended anyone let alone be viewed as dangerous or harmful. The University eventually to censor the article at the risk of allowing terrorism. Applebaum protested the censorship because the fear of publishing came only from assumption. Not only Yale, but one of the richest media companies were not willing to take the chance of offending Putin. Like a chain reaction, other companies jumped on the self-censorship bandwagon and refused to publish anything that could potentially offend. This shows how desperate companies and organizations are to protect their image, even at the cost of possibly saying what people need to hear. The students at Yale were basically told that they do not have the freedom to post something as seemingly harmful as a

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    “Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance.” said Laurie Halse Anderson. Censorship is limiting access to information, ideas or books in order to prevent knowledge or freedom of thought. It suppresses writing or speech for moral, political, or security reasons. Bleeping out swear words in songs, changing the words to more kid friendly version, cutting out sections of a speech, or even just paraphrasing to avoid offending anyone can be considered censorship. Restricting people's freedom of speech is not only against the law, but it also limits access to information - no matter how sensitive the topic.…

    • 1377 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Prior Restraint

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages

    It is the freedom to speak one’s mind without fear of retaliation, now or at any time in the future. We don’t have perfect freedom of speech in any country, yet. It is still a goal we need to strive for. It’s just not authorities that may crack down on uncomfortable or irreverent opinions; the public may be just as harsh a judge when somebody challenges a stigmatized falsely held, but still stigmatized truth. In such circumstances, it is the role of the government to suppress those people and activities that would make people feel threatened by stating opinions that are out of line with commonly held beliefs.…

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Society should have the freedom to do things they wanted People should be allowed to think for themselves. People should not feel so overwhelmed over censorship. In the book, Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, demonstrates what happens when censorship takes over society. For example, they do not let people listen to what they want to hear. In order for the world to run smoothly, Citizens do not need to be under censorship.…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    limiting what and where certain topics can be spoken is very unconstitutional. We need to come together as a country so we never have to deal with that problem; because, if we don’t we could see the end of the first amendment and may end up giving away the rest of our rights. “Students who won’t hear other perspectives are essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the issue is not open to discussion.” A very true statement spoken by Julie Lythcott-Haims in her article, gives a good insight on what people who can’t handle the truth do. Ignoring an issue doesn’t make it easier or make it go away, it just makes the listener worse off for it. A college kid that doesn’t want to hear the fact he received a bad grade, will turn into an adult that won’t want to learn he is late on his bills.…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While Twitter, as a private company has every right to do this, censorship is in no way productive. I disagree with many of the ideas that Yiannopoulos advocates and I condemn much of the rhetoric he engages in, but Americans must learn to deal with cognitive dissonance and realize the value of free speech, even when it is speech one does not like. If the government had played a role in banning Yiannopoulos, the backlash would have rightly been amplified. If the government, local or federal, placed regulations on social media platforms they would be violating the businesses as well as the citizens rights. Another important document from a set of founding fathers is the Federalist Papers.…

    • 774 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Really To Blame

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages

    As he blames the American public for being too lazy to seek the truth for themselves. However, unlike Gabler, Nick Robins-Early’s article, “How to Recognize a Fake News Story: 9 helpful tips to stop yourself from sharing false information,”(The Huffington Post, November 22, 2016) he mentions plenty of valid solutions. For instance, he states how Facebook is causing the problem of spreading fake news and suggests to stop spreading them by not posting these stories where friends and family can easily be influenced. Gabler on the other hand, only mentions Facebook take more responsibility, but fails to discuss what it’s users could do. Of course, this will not stop fake news from spreading entirely, but with time, can limit how much fake news is available to people within small social circles.…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They legally could not fight back against policies that benefited the elite but hurt them, as their freedom of speech was unlawfully taken away. They feared that the government was becoming tyrannical and…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is because we would not have prevented the “definite damage, or the definite risk of damage to individuals and the public” which Mill believed was the only reason to limit ones liberties (Mill, p. 87). We already know from Spencer’s other speeches that he comes with a definite risk of damage and therefore he should be denied the ability to speech at SVSU if he requests to do…

    • 906 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The main issue in our case is the issue of freedom of speech. Josh posted his controversial opinion on social media, which did not threaten anyone but was a very rude thing to say. Though Josh had freedom of speech, his tweet could have been misinterpreted as a threat. Otherwise, it was not within the school’s right to suspend Josh over his choice of words. The social issues that are going on in this case are not only freedom of speech, but the issue of sexual assault on college campuses.…

    • 1430 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    When all will actually adopt the Newspeak, people won’t have bad reasoning as they won’t have the words to do so. The Declaration of Human Rights, for example, is untranslatable into Newspeak, because it expresses abstract and contrary ideas to those of the party. When the word "Oldspeak" will also be forgotten, any link with the history and its literature will be definitely erased. The government believes that this limited vocabulary will therefore limit thoughts and actions, granting its total…

    • 1982 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays