Argumentive Essay Essay, Research Paper
“Are you ready brothers and sisters? Are you really ready? To do this
for Jezzzzz-usssssss? Then fulfill your promise to the master. Help rub
the devil out. For we can no longer tolerate these dirty adulterous
books. Meet me at the Jordan river, and let the fires of hell burn these
sinners and their evil books” (Tubman). Jimmy Lee Tubman said these
words at a revival back in 1978. While many will argue that Tubman had
the right to criticize book publishers and writers, few could have
anticipated that this speech would be a prelude to a riot in Bean
Blossom Indiana which left one dead and thirty five injured. Jimmy Lee
Tubman had in fact crossed the boundaries of free speech and entered
into the land of agitators.
Tubman was never tried for inciting the Bean Blossom Burnings. Tubman
argued that he had simply exercised his freedom of speech. Freedom of
speech. The first amendment. This is the right which separates America
from so many other countries. I believe freedom of speech is a right
which should be defended but also be more clearly defined. The
boundaries of freedom of speech should be set. Freedom of speech may be
exercised only until it interferes or infringes on the rights of others
In the case of Paul Robert Cohen vs. the State of California, the United
States Defined free speech as freedom of expression. (Barnet and Bedau
235). This means that individual are at liberty to express thoughts
clearly as long as conduct does not incite violence. The problem here
lies in interpreting what incites violence. The state of California
argued that Cohen’s jacket, which contained graphic anti-Vietnam
sentiments, was designed to motivate people to riot. The dissenting
opinion agreed, saying, “Cohen was little speech and mostly
conduct”(Barnet and Bedau 238). How can conduct be directly connected to
speech? I believe that John Stuart Mills may provide a working
definition here. Mills says that freedom ends when it impinges on the
rights of another individual(Barnet and Bedau 211). So then if one read
the epithet on Co
violent protest, then another’s individual rights have been violated.
Perhaps this abstract concept can be better understood with more
concrete and current examples. Research in communication analysis show
that persuasive speeches can move an audience to action using emphatic
appeal (Powell 115). This can result in violence. Consider the case of
Father David Troacher. Troacher is an anti-abortion activist who lives
in Pensacola Florida. Using the will of God and Troacher’s own gift for
oratory, he preaches throughout the south and Midwest even able to hold
his rallies on abortion clinic grounds. He urges his audience to do
whatever they have to sop the murder of unborn children. Since Troacher
began giving his speeches twenty four months ago, there have been three
murders of abortion doctors and workers in Florida and Alabama alone.
Two more have been killed on the east coast(Sommes). I believe Troacher
has overstepped the boundary of free speech. Mills would say he is no
longer at liberty. Freedom of speech in this instance has denied freedom
and even life to individuals.
Paul Hill believed in Troacher’s message. In fact, he believed in it so
strongly that he shot and murdered an abortion clinic doctor and his
driver in 1994. Hill was tried and convicted of first degree murder and
was sentenced to death. Hill is currently using his death sentence as a
persuasive tool. He tells anti abortion activists that his death will be
a symbol of the thousands of “murders” which can be attributed to
abortion each year. Florida law enforcement officials fear that Hill’s
execution and rhetoric will lead to more anti-abortion violence(New York
Times). Father Troacher has even told crowds in Alabama that Hill
doesn’t need God’s forgiveness for the murders. Hill in fact is doing
God’s will. Troacher is using his position as a religions medium to
persuade an audience. An audience which may be motivated to follow the
actions of Hill in the name of God. How much more violence will Troacher
create by exercising his freedom of speech?