Essay Example on Free Speech: David Cole's Argument for Its Defense

In his essay, Why We Must Still Defend Free Speech, David Cole argues on the importance of the government not censoring people’s free speech. The moral dilemma of representing individuals who need a portfolio for airing their grievances in a public forum is a significant issue facing ACLU. Although the arguments given by Cole in favor of the neutrality stand when addressing the problems of free speech in the First amendment are compelling, His viewpoint on inequality problems arising from free speech lacks humanity compassion. I will argue in favor of Cole’s idea of not allowing censorship of people’s speech by the government while disagreeing with the author’s position on allowing inequality to progress based on individuals' rights to free speech.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Cole, we already live in a society where inequality is already predominant (Para. 6). Cole says, "Virtually all rights—speech included—are enjoyed unequally, and can reinforce inequality” (Para. 6). Therefore, censorship of free speech will only widen the inequality bridge where the white supremacist who can be able to hire wealthy lawyers to defend them in case of a lawsuit arising from misuse of free speech air their views freely while the poor are discriminated against. Cole argues that "the First Amendment is different because if the weak are silenced while the strong speak, or if some have more to spend on speech than others, the outcomes of the "marketplace of ideas" will be skewed” (Para. 9). Allowing censorship of speech will alter the neutrality stand where the government or the authorities have no power to dictate which speech should be allowed and which should not.

Cole argues that “if we were to authorize government officials to suppress speech they find contrary to American values, it would be Donald Trump—and his allies in state and local governments—who would use that power" (Para. 12). Trump's stand on the rights of the white supremacist groups in the United States of America is that the right of the majority should be upheld. However, Cole says that "here is the ultimate contradiction in the argument for state suppression of speech in the name of equality: it demands protection of disadvantaged minorities’ interests, but in a democracy, the state acts in the name of the majority, not the minority" (Para. 12). Therefore, allowing the government to dictate which speech should be suppressed and which should be allowed gives them the advantage of silencing the minority. In a situation where the minority groups want to air their grievances, and the government has the power to censor their speech, they may be limited to what the only talk of the things that do not discredit the government.

According to Cole, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Throughout our history, disadvantaged minority groups have effectively used the First Amendment to speak, associate, and assemble to demand their rights—and the ACLU has defended their right to do so" (Para. 13). Therefore, it is crucial to protect the freedom that enables minority groups to air their grievances. Altering the provisions of the First Amendment will limit the fight against impunity in the society and will increase inequality rather than eradicating it. Cole says that ".” Free speech, in short, is exposing white supremacists’ ideas to the condemnation they deserve" (Para. 16). Allowing the white supremacist to hold their rallies and openly air their views, which discriminates against the minority, enables the society to view and understand the injustice presented and therefore stand with the minority. Consequently, the government must have a neutral stand on free speech because each group, whether a minority or a majority, will have an equal chance to fight for their rights.

Although Cole presents ideas that are persuasive on the importance of the government not censoring an individual's free speech, inequality problems have been a significant issue in the United States of America long before the First Amendment. Racial discrimination and white supremacy have been an issue affecting the minority. However, Cole says, "the argument that free speech should not be protected in conditions of inequality is misguided” (Para. 8). Although the arguments made on why the government should have a neutral stand to speech is compelling, some of the speeches made by leaders stir violence and encourages discrimination. The issues aired by white supremacist undermining the rights of the minority groups in the United States of America should be addressed using legal means rather than allowing them to progress. However, Cole says, “moral condemnation, not legal suppression, is the appropriate response to these despicable ideas” (Para. 16). I strongly disagree with this idea due to the moral and ethical complications caused by the inequality problem.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Cole's idea of why the government should not be allowed to alter the First Amendment and allowing it to censor free speech explains why we must defend free speech. Giving leaders the power to limit an individual's speech and dictating to the citizens which speeches should be suppressed gives them the ultimate ability to prosecute and discriminate against the minority. Democracy advocates for the rights of the majority rather than the minority, therefore, if democracy is allowed to be a limiting factor to free speech, inequality may progress. It is crucial for the government and all the individuals globally to acknowledge the importance of free speech and protect it from policies set to suppress it.

Work Cited

Cole, David. "Why we must still defend free speech." The New York Review of Books (2017). https://southtexascollege.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-8321229-dt-content-rid-85998947_1/xid-85998947_1