Freedom Of Opinion And Speech In Inherit The Wind

Improved Essays
One of the main themes in the play “Inherit the Wind” is a person’s right to think. The freedom of opinion and speech is an issue discussed throughout the trial of Bert Cates and in the story overall. This message is first explicitly brought up by Drummond in the courtroom. Drummond states that he is trying to establish that everyone has the right to think, and he further argues that Cates is being “threatened with fine and imprisonment because he chooses to speak what he thinks.” (II.ii.64) Drummond clearly believes that the law is as much on trial as the man, contrary to Brady. Throughout the case Drummond holds the position that if Brady and the townspeople are allowed to freely express what they believe in, which is Creationism and …show more content…
At the beginning, she never directly answers Cates whenever he asks her if she thinks his ideas are wrong. She only keeps insisting that he take back what he said, indicating that she is afraid for him and of the consequences of what he said. It is later revealed that she fears her father, when she says that she “was always more frightened of him that [she] was of falling.” (I.ii.49). It is because of this fear that Brady manages to manipulate her into testifying against Cates, and although she did not want to do it she was too afraid to speak up for herself and what she believes. As the story progresses though, Rachel eventually learns to form opinions for herself and to voice her own thoughts. At the very end of the play she approaches Bert, handing him his book, and says, “I’ve read it. All the way through. . . I don’t want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think that’s beside the point.” (III.i.111) Rachel has read the book for herself, and formed her own opinion of it, even if it’s that she disagrees with it. She still recognizes that this is not important however, because Cates still deserves his freedom of

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    In Inherit the Wind, during Act 1, Scene 1, there are two characters, Rachel and Cates, who are seen to have an ambivalent relationship with one another. In a conservative, religious town, Cates is imprisoned for trying to teach about evolution; Rachel secretly meets him afterwards. She continously tries to convince Cates to admit that he was wrong about evolution, so that he may be released; however, when he refuses, she says, “Why can’t you be on the right side of things?”(9). She clearly cares deeply about him, urging him to admit a wrong to save himself and even bringing him some of his belongings, though there is a great juxtaposition when these feelings are compared to her feelings about his beliefs, as evidenced by the quote. Rachel…

    • 177 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Parmelee asked her something very important. “If you will be my companion and help me with the light duties, I will make you my heiress.” Rachel had a choice to make. She thought of the childhood that she grew up in and how all that money could help her family.…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Internal Authority Many believe that authority is held either by the highest ranking official or, by the most convincing speaker, or even the public figure with the most support. These claims are slightly true, but there are other, much more powerful forces, that control how people act, speak or even think. These forces are the ones that must be accepted internally. For if an idea is forced upon you it could never take hold in your life and control you the same way your own ideals could, in other words an internal authority such as one’s beliefs will control a person more than an external or earthly authority. These unseen and powerful forces are human values and beliefs.…

    • 892 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “Speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead if trial by accusation” (Source 2). The downfall and discrediting of Joseph McCarthy are, due to the erroneous public accusations and cruel remarks toward Fisher and Mr.Watkins of having communist ties, as well as acting contrary to senatorial ethics and abusing the freedom of speech. In addition, McCarthy is a Senator of Wisconsin who exposes people he believes have communist sympathies in America by abusing the freedom of speech, hence resulting in American citizens beginning to question if he is acting appropriately, which leads to his downfall and discrediting. Furthermore, the fictitious accusations and cruel statements toward Fisher and Mr.Watkins, resulted in…

    • 953 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Stanley Fish Free Speech

    • 1272 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Questioning is risky. It requires both the risk of questioning incorrectly, and the risk of undermining the oft-accepted beliefs of an authority. In the face of loftily written texts by distinguished academics, agreeing with the text at face value seems the easiest option. The fear of overstepping and inaccurately rendering the author’s opinion moot outweighs the reward of carefully finding the flaws in the text and learning more about reading critically. The reader of Stanley Fish’s “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too” may experience a similar feeling.…

    • 1272 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One aspect all cultures share is the passing down of philosophical ideas. As these ideas are formed and reinforced over generations it is difficult to change these, despite the evidence you may have. Such a situation is the case with both the Scopes trial its theatrical counterpart, the trial of Bertram Cates in Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee’s Inherit the Wind. The above quote shows that while the Scopes trial is seen by many as a question of science versus religion, Lawrence and Lee portray it as a victory of learning inhibitions placed by a biased society, and that science and religion do not need to be opposing forces.…

    • 392 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Judge Danforth is a very good example of this in act three. “You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be against it, there be no road between…” (Page 1298) Danforth did not want people trying to correct or go against what he was saying. Act three displays a lot of controversy and disagreement between the characters.…

    • 1360 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mill contends that opinions should not be expressed if this is done to cause mischief and that they are permissible to be expressed if they do not. He argues that it is justifiable that a man expresses a negative opinion towards the ownership of private property or states that merchants are the reason for poverty (Mill 52). Although controversial in nature, such opinions are not harming anyone and for this reason, should have the ability to circulate. However, the opinion is only justifiable in certain instances where the context of the situation affirms it is not inflicting harm on another individual or a group (Mill 16). To illustrate this point, Mill refers to a scenario in which the same opinion is expressed by a group of people which could lead to dangerous circumstances (e.g. mob outside of corn-dealers house).…

    • 2454 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Paper #1: Chapters 1-3 of Voices of Freedom Looking back at the whole occurrence of the discovery of the New World it becomes evident the many hardships that the colonial settlers caused which justifies the egocentric intentions of the many Europeans. It seems that even though the settlers were fleeing from a country that forced views among themselves or caused unjust situations; the colonists were precisely acting on the foreign population, who they viewed as “lesser”, similarly to that of their homelands. Although at the time the occurrence was not obvious, looking at it from today’s standpoint, it is quit ironic. On more than one instance the settlers treated distinctive groups with an inhumane disrespect with no regard to their well-being.…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Remember the day when you could say anything you wanted without worrying about someone telling you, “That is politically incorrect”or “do not say that, that could offend someone.” People long to be able to speak their mind in public without anyone thinking that they are weird or crazy. This theory applies in movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls and even schools. Lately it seems as though you have to retain your thoughts inside your mind and not say anything out loud. People have to censor what they say so that no one will be offended, but how can you please everyone?…

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “The Right to Your Opinion” by Jamie Whyte is a chapter from his book Crimes Against Logic which was published in 2004. In this chapter, he discusses the invalidity and weak logic behind the commonly used cliché of being entitled to one’s opinion and claims that having the right to one’s opinions is not only false but damaging to the flow of ideas between individuals. Whyte opens his argument with the statement that, whether you are right or wrong, the assertion that one has a right to their opinion neither adds relevant information nor advances the discussion towards any kind of settlement and as such is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He continues to explain the mixed interpretations of the entitlement: the legal interpretation here one is entitled to any opinion and the knowledge based interpretation that one is entitled to an opinion if and only if it is supported by evidence. According to Whyte, rights “are defined by the duties they give rise to” (Whyte, p. 413).…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Despite the natural rights and humane principles presented in our nation, we are not all treated equally. Our modern world struggles with social and racial discrimination, despite lawful efforts to prevent such attrocities. This has impacted our society through unspeakable means, and has molded many of our beliefs and ideals regarding the freedom and equality of those around us and how they strive to rightfully earn and represent these privleges. These thoughts were much different in 1832, however, and are demonstrated through Maria W. Stewart's lecture. Through careful utilization of the three rhetorical strategies, Stewart enables herself to appeal to logic, emotion, and ethics to persuade her audience of her personal (although biased)…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Freedom of speech can be debated on whether or not there should be boundaries to it or not and on what is considered freedom of speech. The First Amendment affirmed that "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech" but based on www.legal-dictionary.the free dictionary.com it states' All speech is not equal under the First Amendment. The high court has identified five areas of expression that the government may legitimately restrict under certain circumstances. These areas are speech that incites illegal activity and subversive speech, fighting words, obscenity and pornography, commercial speech, and symbolic expression'. On this information and amongst other I believe that freedom of speech is both restricted to a fault and abused.…

    • 980 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Free speech in the classroom is a common debate. The first Amendment of the Constitution states that people have the right of expression and free speech. Some people believe students should be able to freely express themselves and have complete free speech in the classroom. Others believe that students should not have total free speech in school. Students should have free speech in school, but to a certain extent.…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Freedom of speech is a right of citizens that is protected by the U.S constitution. Under this amendment, citizens are able to voice their concerns without being censored by the government. Due to this unlimited freedom, most citizens are using their voice to say hateful and negative things to other citizens. However, should this speech have some type of limitations? They have every right to speak their mind, except when it is harming or hurting another person.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays