Where We Stand: Thirty Reasons For Loving Our Country
No right is truly unlimited journalist Roger Rosenblatt would argue. Author Rosenblatt narrates “everyone loves free expression as long as it isn’t exercised” (501) in “We Are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid and Dead” as part from his essay collection titled Where We Stand: Thirty Reasons for Loving Our Country published in 2002. Rosenblatt informs his audience about the very controversial and objectionable value of freedom of expression, and what negative costs can ultimately stem from censoring language. Rosenblatt uses his credibility where he appeals to the every man/women reader’s emotions and logic criticizing any censorship on free expression, emphasizes the defending right on freedom of speech given by the Constitution. However, Rosenblatt includes many examples of the limitations placed on our free expression. Rosenblatt successfully engages
…show more content…
his audience, but unfortunately loses his message when he attempts to include humorous and inappropriate langue. Rosenblatt tries to portray the hypocrisy when it comes to freedom of speech.
He feels we praise freedom of speech but when somebody says or does something that we cannot accept we feel anger and become impractical. He describes some scenarios of how people expressed their values freely, and attempts to get the reader to understand and support his same values through these examples. He goes on further believing it is a contradiction to have freedom of speech as a right but get penalized when we exercise that right. Ultimately Rosenblatt feels there should be absolutely no censorship and absolute freedom of expression. Rosenblatt begins by pointing out “everyone loves free expression as long as it isn’t exercised” (501). Rosenblatt then sets a very emotional tone for the rest of the article appealing to the reader’s emotions and feelings. He does this in order to build his argument against censorship on expression. Rosenblatt then adds “the Founding Fathers had actually meant it when they allowed someone to do something that would outrage the rest of us” (501). This contends Rosenblatt’s argument of free
expression. You can feel how passionate author Rosenblatt feels about free expression. Roger Rosenblatt was a Ph.D. graduate from Harvard University in 1968. In 1975 he started his career as a journalist for the New Republic before he went on to join the Washington Post. For a total of eight years Rosenblatt was the senior editor and essayist at Time magazine. Throughout his career, he received much recognition and received many prizes and awards such as the Peabody Award and the Robert F. Kennedy Book Prize. Adding on to being a journalist and author, Rosenblatt also appears as a commentator on the channel PBS News, as well as a director for many of his wide range of social and cultural themes. Because of Rosenblatt’s credentials he builds his credibility to speak about censorship on freedom of expression. His credibleness makes it easier for his readers to trust him and follow into supporting his main purpose. Roger Rosenblatt continues to reach to the readers emotions by using the rhetorical strategy like scenarios. Rosenblatt starts with the suspension that basketball player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, faced after he “refused to stand up for the playing of the national anthem” (501) and suspending major league baseball star John Rocker when he said “’he did not want to ride the train with single moms, queers, and illegal aliens’” (502). He includes these examples because he wants his readers, specifically his sport fan readers, to feel outraged that they were not able to express themselves freely without being punished for it. However, this could make if difficult on the readers who are single mothers, gay or immigrants to support him on banning censorship. Although Rosenblatt appeals to his reader’s ethos, he hinders his theme when he justifies it by saying “Rocker had a perfect, or rather imperfect, right to sound like a jackass” (502), potentially also being a part of offending anyone of those groups as well as ruining his own credibility. Rosenblatt then includes other details where people exercised their freedom of speech. Rosenblatt moves towards logos appeal to build his argument, by including the source “an art exhibit in the Phoenix Art Museum called “What Is the Proper Way to Display the US Flag?’” (Rosenblatt 502), where he explains the “exhibit requires you to walk across the American flag on the floor” (Rosenblatt 502). Showing that he did his research on some serious offending examples of free expression, he includes this detail to create this imagery for his readers. He raises tension and the eyebrows of his readers, successfully engaging them in this heated discussion. While he explores his readers boundaries in what they will find acceptable, he was not successful because not every reader will share the same boundaries, causing conflict between one reader who may find this acceptable and the other reader who feels offended. He goes on further and even includes the dialog from a furious visitor “’That’s my flag, and I’m going to defend it’” (Rosenblatt 502). Rosenblatt adds this dialog to defend the behavior of the people who are in their right to be free to do what they want as long as it does not yield any persons’ right to free expression. Where he again displays where both people differences may be expressed. Another rhetorical strategy Rosenblatt utilizes is tone and emotion triggering language. Rosenblatt uses this humorous tone to relate to his readers on a personal level, but ultimately pierces his credibility and loses the seriousness in his argument when uses phrases like the “right to sound like a jackass” (Rosenblatt 502), “then you meet another jackass” (Rosenblatt 502), and “sons of bitches” (Rosenblatt 502). Rosenblatt uses this tone to make his message more relatable but backfires because of the unprofessional langue he included in the context. Not only was the language inappropriate, but it also rejects the other half of the readers that were not completely convinced. Rosenblatt makes his purpose more personal and less logical which does not provide enough support for is argument. Throughout Rosenblatt’s article, he holds the theme of freedom of expression. From the beginning to the end, you understand as a reader how Rosenblatt feels, and why he does choose to believe against censorship on expression. Finally he proposes, “Beauty of American freedom is that it is ungovernable, that it always runs slightly ahead of human temperament” (503). Digging into the audience pathos, he touches on the fact and laws that are expected to be upheld by the government. Rosenblatt included many examples of how censorship can invade on an individual’s right to freedom of expression. In conclusion, Rosenblatt effectively portrays his own beliefs and views on free expression through the technical tone appealing to the audience logos and ethos but falls short on getting his audience to get on board because of a lack of empathetic language. Instead he then poses a new argument on the readers that would want censorship on these offensive terms and exhibits.
his audience, but unfortunately loses his message when he attempts to include humorous and inappropriate langue. Rosenblatt tries to portray the hypocrisy when it comes to freedom of speech.
He feels we praise freedom of speech but when somebody says or does something that we cannot accept we feel anger and become impractical. He describes some scenarios of how people expressed their values freely, and attempts to get the reader to understand and support his same values through these examples. He goes on further believing it is a contradiction to have freedom of speech as a right but get penalized when we exercise that right. Ultimately Rosenblatt feels there should be absolutely no censorship and absolute freedom of expression. Rosenblatt begins by pointing out “everyone loves free expression as long as it isn’t exercised” (501). Rosenblatt then sets a very emotional tone for the rest of the article appealing to the reader’s emotions and feelings. He does this in order to build his argument against censorship on expression. Rosenblatt then adds “the Founding Fathers had actually meant it when they allowed someone to do something that would outrage the rest of us” (501). This contends Rosenblatt’s argument of free
expression. You can feel how passionate author Rosenblatt feels about free expression. Roger Rosenblatt was a Ph.D. graduate from Harvard University in 1968. In 1975 he started his career as a journalist for the New Republic before he went on to join the Washington Post. For a total of eight years Rosenblatt was the senior editor and essayist at Time magazine. Throughout his career, he received much recognition and received many prizes and awards such as the Peabody Award and the Robert F. Kennedy Book Prize. Adding on to being a journalist and author, Rosenblatt also appears as a commentator on the channel PBS News, as well as a director for many of his wide range of social and cultural themes. Because of Rosenblatt’s credentials he builds his credibility to speak about censorship on freedom of expression. His credibleness makes it easier for his readers to trust him and follow into supporting his main purpose. Roger Rosenblatt continues to reach to the readers emotions by using the rhetorical strategy like scenarios. Rosenblatt starts with the suspension that basketball player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, faced after he “refused to stand up for the playing of the national anthem” (501) and suspending major league baseball star John Rocker when he said “’he did not want to ride the train with single moms, queers, and illegal aliens’” (502). He includes these examples because he wants his readers, specifically his sport fan readers, to feel outraged that they were not able to express themselves freely without being punished for it. However, this could make if difficult on the readers who are single mothers, gay or immigrants to support him on banning censorship. Although Rosenblatt appeals to his reader’s ethos, he hinders his theme when he justifies it by saying “Rocker had a perfect, or rather imperfect, right to sound like a jackass” (502), potentially also being a part of offending anyone of those groups as well as ruining his own credibility. Rosenblatt then includes other details where people exercised their freedom of speech. Rosenblatt moves towards logos appeal to build his argument, by including the source “an art exhibit in the Phoenix Art Museum called “What Is the Proper Way to Display the US Flag?’” (Rosenblatt 502), where he explains the “exhibit requires you to walk across the American flag on the floor” (Rosenblatt 502). Showing that he did his research on some serious offending examples of free expression, he includes this detail to create this imagery for his readers. He raises tension and the eyebrows of his readers, successfully engaging them in this heated discussion. While he explores his readers boundaries in what they will find acceptable, he was not successful because not every reader will share the same boundaries, causing conflict between one reader who may find this acceptable and the other reader who feels offended. He goes on further and even includes the dialog from a furious visitor “’That’s my flag, and I’m going to defend it’” (Rosenblatt 502). Rosenblatt adds this dialog to defend the behavior of the people who are in their right to be free to do what they want as long as it does not yield any persons’ right to free expression. Where he again displays where both people differences may be expressed. Another rhetorical strategy Rosenblatt utilizes is tone and emotion triggering language. Rosenblatt uses this humorous tone to relate to his readers on a personal level, but ultimately pierces his credibility and loses the seriousness in his argument when uses phrases like the “right to sound like a jackass” (Rosenblatt 502), “then you meet another jackass” (Rosenblatt 502), and “sons of bitches” (Rosenblatt 502). Rosenblatt uses this tone to make his message more relatable but backfires because of the unprofessional langue he included in the context. Not only was the language inappropriate, but it also rejects the other half of the readers that were not completely convinced. Rosenblatt makes his purpose more personal and less logical which does not provide enough support for is argument. Throughout Rosenblatt’s article, he holds the theme of freedom of expression. From the beginning to the end, you understand as a reader how Rosenblatt feels, and why he does choose to believe against censorship on expression. Finally he proposes, “Beauty of American freedom is that it is ungovernable, that it always runs slightly ahead of human temperament” (503). Digging into the audience pathos, he touches on the fact and laws that are expected to be upheld by the government. Rosenblatt included many examples of how censorship can invade on an individual’s right to freedom of expression. In conclusion, Rosenblatt effectively portrays his own beliefs and views on free expression through the technical tone appealing to the audience logos and ethos but falls short on getting his audience to get on board because of a lack of empathetic language. Instead he then poses a new argument on the readers that would want censorship on these offensive terms and exhibits.