Dezaray Vazquez

O’Keefe
English 4
1-19-2018

The Right to Express

In our everyday lives, we are exposed to new beliefs through the way we communicate with
others. Whether it be to speak about our feelings towards a specific person or a certain topic, there is
always going to be a conflict on the difference of opinions. An issue that is rising however, is the
controversy whether or not there should be limits to free speech. According to the first amendment,
freedom of speech is a right granted to us that prevents the government from censoring and restraining our
thoughts and opinions. Free speech is what allowed for women in the Women’s March to protest against
for what they do not believe in and what they want to see improve. The topic of limiting free speech is
becoming an issue that George Orwell would be strongly against. Orwell would be against limiting free
speech due to how it would create a situation in where the government controls the people similarly to
how the government controlled the thoughts of its citizens in the book 1984.
In the book 1984, George Orwell creates a world in which the government controls the mind and
the masses of its citizens. It is even a crime to think anything other than what the Party wants to make
them think. In the text it states, “In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and
self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy- everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of
thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent,
and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or child or a friend
any longer” (Orwell 267). In this quote O’Brien is explaining to Winston how in Oceania, no one is
allowed to have thoughts that are not what the Party wants for them. In other words, citizens of Oceania
are subjected to the thoughts and ideas that the Party gives them and are not allowed to have their own
thoughts. Through this example it is showing how Orwell would be against to the limits of free speech
because he believes that people should not be mandated to have thoughts that are not their own. He
cherishes the idea that a person is their own person and should be allowed to be their own individual,
whether it be through thoughts which in the end is equal to speech. Others may disagree and state, that
there should be limits to free speech due to the harm it may cause people. They would be wrong because
there is a difference between causing harm through speech or just being simply offensive. According to an
article in the New York Times, it states “Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous
system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or
encountering an odious idea in a university lecture” (Barrett 2017). In other words, offensive language
does not cause harm directly to the body or the brain. Although offensive speech may hurt a person’s
feelings, it is not directly causing harm to the person's body or brain. Lastly, there should be no limits to
free speech because it allows for individuals to speak up about certain issues that may present a conflict to
them. According to an article in the New York Times, it states, “T​he recent student demonstrations at
Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo
Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech
for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that
the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected” (Baer 2017). In other words, through
being allowed to have freedom of speech allowed for these groups of people to speak out about issues that
can improve the lives of other people.
The act of speaking allows not only for people to be their own individual, but it also presents
 Dezaray Vazquez
O’Keefe
English 4
1-19-2018

sides to an argument that can help better inform other people. Being able to understand both sides of a
situation through speaking can inform other people of new evidence and create a more clear response to a
certain topic. For example, if freedom of speech was limited there would not be a chance for women to
march about the rights they believe in. Causing a similarity to the world that Orwell created in his book
1984. If the government limits our speech they are limiting us as individuals. In the end, there should be
no limits to speech due to the fact that the government or others in power may take advantage of our
rights.
 Dezaray Vazquez
O’Keefe
English 4
1-19-2018

Works Cited

“The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” ​National Constitution Center – The 1st

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution​,

constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/the-freedom-of-s

peech-and-of-the-press-clause/interp/33.

Baer, Ulrich. “What 'Snowflakes' Get Right About Free Speech.” ​The New York Times​, The New

York Times, 24 Apr. 2017,

www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speec

h.html.

Barrett, Lisa Feldman. “When Is Speech Violence?” ​The New York Times​, The New York Times,

14 July 2017,

www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html​.

Orwell, George, and Erich Fromm. ​1984: a novel​. Signet Classics, 2008.