Free To Speak Or Free To Hate?

Some of us quieter, shy, and peaceful types of people like to keep our opinions to ourselves. We hate confrontation or arguing with anybody. On the other hand, some of us depend on our rights as citizens of the United States to speak our minds whenever and wherever we wish, no matter what the consequences are. Some countries don’t have these rights, you know. A number of these biased individuals, however, take it way too far. They take too much of an advantage on our freedoms and twist the words around to make it say what they want it to say. Burning buildings, insulting signs, destroyed flags, offensive logos, death threats – where do we draw the line? There needs to be a clearer restriction on our freedom of speech to prevent a potentially harmful or severe situation from occurring.

So what exactly is freedom of speech? Amendment I of the Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" (Smolla). Freedom of speech is defined as the right to state our thoughts and opinions without fear of punishment or persecution from the government. Freedom of speech is the most crucial right given by the Bill of Rights. If not for the freedom of speech, the other rights that are provided by the Constitution would be less valuable because we could not express our opinions about them. How could we have “the right to a fair trial” if we couldn’t defend ourselves by arguing and confrontation? Free speech is also the most appreciated amendment of all of the others. If the Bill of Rights did not promise freedom of speech, our lives would be completely different. Imagine your mouth being glued shut or having to have permission to say anything that you wanted to, no matter how little. Everyone would live in panic of being penalized just for conveying his or her own opinion.

Self expression is a necessity. Everyone needs to be able to express how they feel, their personal desires and ideas. Otherwise, we would all be the same. We would not be unique or be able to show the world what we can do and how we can change it for the better. It is simple to say that everyone has the right to say and do what they want, but it is just as easy to agree on reasons for limiting that freedom. No one would approve of the idea that anything, anyone says should be silenced only because it was disliked. Then again, we should all agree that it is not moral to hold up a sign saying “Kill Barack Obama!” no matter how much he may be disliked by that individual. The principle of free speech in theory appears so simple. Most would not argue in favor of restricting our rights to share our views. However, when it hits close to home, free speech restrictions can seem like a rational reaction to vulgar behavior.

In January 1999, Truong Van Tran, a Vietnamese immigrant and the owner of the Hi-Tek Video Store, had hung a poster of Ho Chi Minh in his window, along with the North Vietnamese flag. These symbols were a vivid reminder of the cruelty and horror that was enforced on them by Ho’s rule during the Vietnam War. As a result of the protests that had taken place outside of his store, a restraining order was sent out making Truong take down the poster and the flag. However, Supreme Court Judge Tam Nomoto overturned the order allowing Truong to re-hang them. Then, he was later attacked by a heated gang of protesters (cite, 76). While violence was the entirely wrong reaction, it was his own fault that he got attacked. What did he expect to happen when he put the flag and poster back up with a bunch of angry protesters watching? We should be able to share how we feel about certain issues, but not to the extent of causing, or threatening, violence or another issue, which is what Truong did. He caused violence by insisting on displaying something that hurt others.

Today, free speech is not only the freedom to speak, but also the freedom of expression. It is not only your words, but your actions that are sometimes protected by the Amendment. It represents not just what you say, but how you say it. Some of you might think that that means you have the right to say what you want, wear what you want, write what you want, read what you want, watch what you want, judge who you want, and offend who you want, right? Not exactly. Our words and self-expression can sometimes have harmful consequences. According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent” (cite). Now, if there really was a fire, you are very much allowed to yell “fire!” However, as interpreted by Holmes, if there is not actually a fire and you yell “fire!” for the sole purpose of causing panic and confusion, then it is not protected by the First Amendment. Speaking your mind isn’t always fun and games. It can really cause some serious harm to someone or a crowd full of people.

Protesting, when done the right way, can really get the message out and accomplish wonderful things. It can persuade a nation to make the important changes that need to be made. For instance, Rosa Parks, known as “the woman who changed a nation”, stood up for the right to sit wherever she wanted on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She was tired of the treatment she and other African Americans been given every day of their lives, what with the racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws of the time. She, and many, many others, only wanted the same freedoms that everyone else had. She did not cause disaster and there was no violence on her part. She just simply refused to get up and inspired others to do the same. As a result, she became an important symbol in the Civil Rights movement and inspired millions to help end segregation forever (cite).

But protests are not always this rewarding. Some cause more hardships and disasters than were there in the first place. In 1995 on a lovely spring morning, a rented truck was parked on the street just outside the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. A little while later, a gigantic blast coming from a bomb hidden in the truck shattered many windows around the area and set off a tremor that was felt from as far as thirty miles away. The major impact caused the front of the Murrah Building to be torn completely off and the many-storied building to collapse. Overall, 169 innocent lives were ended and many others were mutilated. Why, you ask? Two years prier to that very date, April 19, 1995, a government raid took place on a building belonging to a religious cult near Waco, Texas. At some point in the raid, the structure had caught fire killing the 80 people inside, including children. The bomb that was placed in front of the Murrah Federal Building was a protest for that earlier tragedy. However, this kind of protest did not make anything better. It just killed more than twice as many people as the incident they were protesting (cite). It caused way more harm than good, quite the opposite of Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Freedom of speech is not only about sharing your own opinions and beliefs, but hearing other people’s viewpoints without being hateful and rude. Epictetus, a Greek philosopher, once said , “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak,” according to ThinkExist.com. However, some people don’t agree. Just this month a group of atheists in Olympia, Washington, decided to put up a sign in the Capitol building partly in response to a nearby nativity scene. The placard said: “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" (cite). The atheists had exercised their right to free speech even though they didn't have a holiday to celebrate or display. Instead, they used their freedom of speech to insult and put down everyone who did have a holiday. They saw other people's expressions of their opinions and instead of being thoughtful, open-minded and willing to accept their faith, they responded hatefully and insultingly. What some people don’t understand is that when you listen to others, then they are much more likely to listen to you. Therefore, allowing you to exercise you freedom of speech more usefully. After all, if everyone spoke and no one listened, what good is having the freedom to speak?

Despite all of the protests against limiting freedom of speech, you might be surprised to learn that almost half of all Americans think the First Amendment “goes too far” in the rights it guarantees. In fact, 74 percent of people mildly or strongly disagree that public school students "should be allowed to wear a T-shirt with a message or picture that others might find offensive." As well as 28 percent of people mildly or strongly disagree that "any group that wants to should be allowed to hold a rally for a cause or issue even if it may be offensive to others in the community" (cite). Many Americans feel that the boundaries that define what the First Amendment is protecting are not clear enough and need to be limited. The government's restrictions should limit speech that is going to limit other's speech, such as speech that is assertive and insulting enough that it might intimidate or force others into silence.

From constantly offending everyone to unnecessary, violent protests, something has to change. Not necessarily only with laws limiting our rights of free speech, but with us limiting it. Believe it or not, we all have the ability to control what we say and how we say it. Go out, speak your mind, and stand up for what you believe in, but do it in a manner that will be respected instead of causing violence or hate. If we would just stop and pay attention to what people have to say instead of speaking over it and not hearing a word but our own, this world would be a much better place to live in for all of us. Sometimes it is not just governments, but individuals who have to decide for themselves.

Be More Than the Stereotype

Women are more emotional than men. Men never ask for directions. Young people don't want to work. Girls like pink and pretty things. People in wheelchairs are also mentally challenged. Plain Janes. Jocks. Cheerleaders/Preps. Goth/Emo. Goody Two Shoes. Geeks/Nerds. Rednecks/Hicks. Punks/Skaters.

Stereotypes are everywhere. People all over the world get reduced to “fitting in” with a specific group, whether we really fit in to it or not. Even if we try our best to individualize ourselves so that we don’t get placed under one of these categories, we are classified as “weird” or “loners.” There is no way to avoid or stop these common perceptions; however, there are steps we can take to overcome them and love ourselves for who we are.

First of all, you should identify or discover who you truly are. Are you quiet and shy, or loud and outgoing? What are your passions without letting parents or friends influence you into something else? What makes you unique and stand out of the crowd? Once you figure that out, embrace it. Try to develop a positive viewpoint of your natural qualities and personality. Don’t let anyone else’s opinions of you change your opinions of yourself. If you know who you really are, then you will realize how ridiculous the stereotype actually is and why you don’t fit in with it. A way to do this is to begin a list of the reasons why you do not fit in with the commonly perceived label that you are being placed under.

Secondly, educate yourself about your stereotype. Most of them originated in some part of history, no matter how ignorant they may seem. For instance, a majority of high class people had indoor jobs while middle and low class individuals had to work outside on farms or construction sites in the sun, hence the term “red-neck.” Ever wondered why blonds were the dumb ones? Some people say it’s due to the fact that men would be more attracted to blond women and notice only the “dumb” things that they did. Others think that it was brought on, or at least encouraged, by celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Suzanne Somers. The media has especially played an important role in supporting stereotypical behavior. In general, sitcom families normally consist of the smart, nerdy child with oversized glasses, the rebellious, teenager, and the good-looking, older son or daughter. Then, you have the working mother, who takes care of the house and kids, married to the messy father, who also works but doesn’t do anything at home except for sitting on the couch, watching TV, and drinking a cold beer. So, as you can see, if you know the source of the stereotype that you are being subjected to, you can further understand where it is coming from and overcome it more willingly.

Next, try to identify some positive role models in your specific stereotype or just in general. Every group has its determined individuals who have conquered their fears, came out of their shells, and broken away from the crowd. Identify these barrier breaking people whose accomplishments and exceptionally positive attitudes are proving or have already proven their negative stereotypes wrong. For example, the famous and very inspirational, Helen Keller suddenly lost both her hearing and vision at the age of 19 months due to an illness. Against all odds, however, she grew into a highly intelligent and sensitive woman who wrote, spoke, and worked hard to help other people who were suffering and confused, just like she was. She had shown the world what a severely disabled person could accomplish with an incredibly positive outlook on life and a lot of persistence. Now, you may be thinking, but I can’t be like her. Nothing I can do will ever be as courageous and inspiring as what she did. Well, how do you know that for sure? No one ever thinks that they will really break these “barriers” and be an inspiration to people everywhere. They merely try to live their lives as best as they can and not let anyone bring them down.

Do not define yourself by the negative image that you have become a target to. Be more than the stereotype. Use all of the pessimism and disapproval as inspiration to rise above the negative viewpoint. Don’t be someone that you’re not, just because that is what everyone expects you to be. You have to remember, however, that you shouldn’t defy a stereotype just for the sake of defying a stereotype. Do what’s natural for you. By discovering the true you, realizing just how ridiculous these stereotypes really are, and finding inspiration from other positive role models who have broken some barriers, you will soon figure out that you don’t really care what other people think about you.

Process Analysis Essay Outline

Title: Turn Your Back on Stereotypes

Thesis Statement: Stereotyping will never fade away; however, there are steps you can take to overcome it.

I. Know yourself.
A. If you know who you really are, then you will realize how ridiculous the stereotype really is and why you don’t fit in with it.
B. Begin a list of the ways you do not fit in with the commonly perceived label.

II. Identify positive role models.
A. Every group has its determined individuals who have conquered their fears, came out of their shells, and broken out of the crowd.
B. Identify these barrier breaking people whose accomplishments and attitudes are proving their negative stereotypes wrong.

III. Educate yourself.
A. All stereotypes originated in some part of history, no matter how ignorant they may seem.
B. If you know the source of the stereotype that you are being subjected to, you can understand where it is coming from and overcome it more willingly.

IV. Be more than the stereotype.
A. Do not define yourself by the negative image that you have became a target to.
B. Use all of this pessimism and disapproval as inspiration to rise above the negative viewpoint.

Disabilities in Latin America

There are nearly 50 million Latin Americans suffering from one or more disability. That is about 10 percent of the region’s population. Most of these people lack access to not only needed health services, but to even the health buildings themselves. Also, health insurers are more likely to reject people with disabilities. Consequently, necessary services or tools designed to aid disabled people are not provided.

The major causes of a disability are malnutrition, communicable diseases, low quality of prenatal care, and accidents. In some cases, diseases such as polio could cause paralysis which limits a person’s mobility. In other cases, preventable diseases and treatable injuries could cause unnecessary handicap. However, the leading cause of disabilities in Latin America is poverty. This has been a problem in most countries for decades, if not longer. Risk of infection is much higher for poor families because of poor sanitation. As a result, they are more disease prone and unable to receive proper health care. Those who do receive health care go into more debt which could cause even more diseases.

Disability results from not only a diagnosable condition, but also because they are left without access to education, labor markets, and public services. Only about 20 percent of regular schools in Brazil are accessible to disabled children and just 10 percent in Mexico. Most schools suffer from a severe lack of sufficient transportation, teacher training, equipment, furniture, learning materials, and access into their buildings. Because of the necessary need for education that disabled people rarely receive, about 80-90 percent of them are unemployed. Disability affects an entire family as well as the person afflicted. The wife or mother is more likely to be the caregivers for children. This means that they are not able to invest in themselves.

Along with recent efforts to address the importance of helping the disabled, the World Bank is working with other local organizations, such as the Inter-American Development Bank, on developing methods and common standards to determine the number of disabled people in the region. The Bank is also supporting programs that deal with accessibility. They are upgrading rail and bus-based mass transit systems in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. Working on inclusive education projects in Uruguay and Brazil and reconstruction of health infrastructure in countries such as El Salvador.

Across Latin America, organizations are making an effort to develop national and regional policies and strategies that help to include people with disabilities throughout all aspects of community, society, and economy. However, these efforts are not enough. If more people knew about this problem, then they could do more to help. Also, if they had a program that could pair up families with disabilities and families that are well off, it would be a good way to help those that can’t help themselves. Either way, a program needs to be set up that helps aid those with disabilities, even if it’s not through other families.

Matilda: Book vs. Movie

Have you ever gazed at an object, like the remote that you left on the other side of the room or that comfy, warm blanket that’s not within reach, and desperately wished that it would just magically come to you? Matilda Wormwood didn’t just wish she could move an inanimate object with her mind, it actually happened. This was no coincidence.

Matilda by Roald Dahl went from being an amusing, classic children’s book to an equally entertaining movie. Although the film’s adaptation is very comparable to the book, there were still quite a few changes.

Matilda, the movie, was Americanized as well as modernized. In the book, Matilda lived in England, where Roald Dahl grew up, while the movie took place in the United States. The only remaining British character in the movie was Mrs. Trunchbull, the cruel headmistress. Matilda’s best friend, Lavender, was an African American in the movie yet the book only described her as a “skinny little nymph” (102). This was most likely done in order to show America’s diversity. Also, a boy got thrown out of a window because he was eating M&M’s in a literature class, instead of getting thrown out for eating Liquorice Allsorts in a Bible Study class, in order to bring current fads and culture up-to-date.

Overall, the characters were relatively the same in both the book and the movie, however, there are a few exceptions. Mrs. Honey was described as being in poverty in the book with no electricity and other poor living conditions. However, the movie showed her living in a beautiful, little cottage with all the essentials needed for a livable home. Matilda’s brother was turned from ordinary and annoying to a bully who took after his father, whose personality didn’t change at all. Both of Matilda’s worthless, inconsiderate parents couldn’t care less where their daughter ended up in the book, however, the movie made Mrs. Wormwood show some humanity when she gave her up so she could have a better home with Mrs. Honey. In addition, the Trunchbull was not quite as violent to the children in the movie, but still quite cruel. Rather than an innocent child being hammer thrown over a tall fence by her pig tails and getting hurt, she slid gracefully through a beautiful flower garden picking various flowers along the way.
Along with a few personality traits being changed, their motives were altered as well. As Matilda got pushed around, called names, and realized she was nothing more than a scab to her parents, she decided that the only way to tolerate them was to teach them a lesson and get even. On the other hand, the movie explained that she was simply punishing her parents, but only when they deserve it, instead of getting revenge. In fact, her mean-spirited father, played by Danny DeVito, gave her the brilliant idea by saying, “when a person is bad, that person has to be taught a lesson”. Also, in the book, Matilda's father destroyed her library book out of pure spite, while in the movie, the book was destroyed because “it’s by an American, it’s certain to be filth. That’s all they write about” (40).

The most significant difference between the book and the movie is the way Matilda’s powers were portrayed. Her incredible powers in the book were considered more as a miracle than a standard superpower, as opposed to the movie. She started out unintentionally moving tiny objects in both, but the movie had her lifting other children and objects that were nearly twice her weight. The book made her work harder and practice with all her strength, while she managed to make it seem like a breeze in the movie. At the end of the movie, the Trunchbull and Matilda appear to be competing, fighting obvious physical might against strong mental powers. The characters in the book, however, never lose their astonishment and fear of dealing with forces larger than human. Her major accomplishment was only that she was able to move the chalk and write what she wanted in order to scare the vicious headmistress out of their town. Doing so, she mentally drained herself so much that she lost all of her powers. Matilda did not lose her powers in the movie version. Although she didn’t use them often, she still used them to at least get a book off of her shelf at the very end.

In conclusion, the movie and book left fans with somewhat different messages and feelings. The movie made Matilda look more like a superhero and gave its viewers the message that anything is possible. In slight contrast, the book gave its readers the feeling that anything is possible, but it might hurt. Also, it encouraged children to begin reading for pleasure, rather than just reading because they have to. Even so, both are childhood classics that will cause you to randomly stare at objects, make you think twice about sending your child to a school with a headmistress that looks as if she could break you into a million little pieces, and teach valuable lessons that will last a lifetime.