Should there be a filter for freedom of speech?

Michael McGough, LA Times writer of The younger you are, the less you support free speech, discusses about Pew Research Center shared news about millennial opinion. The main question to think about when reading is, “-if government should be able to prevent people from making offensive statements about minorities." McGough really supports Pew, as he uses them as a point of reference and also a global survey.  I think that there are different views to unfold the answer with, generation differences, having an opinion about the 1st Amendment, and education level.

McGough only shares us the percentages of who does supported, so I’m not surprised that an existing of 27% Generation X or 24% of Baby boomers that support to control. I think that the other side of the percentage in those generations would want to keep the freedom of speech exactly how it is. Maybe it’s a form of feeling that those who want to have an offensive statements blocked is that our younger generation is being too soft or too sensitive.

Think about it, in our Republic Presidential candidates, who voice has stood out to be obtuse? Media hungry? (seriously just google Donald trump is...)

It’s very hard to choose words correctly if you don’t know your audience, anything or everything could be offensive to someone. Some people just need a filter, some people need to just not let words phase on them. Why spoon-feed words that only the younger generation would like to hear?

Let’s talk about the survey, McGough states that he created which revealed  “21% of college students said they agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was “outdated” and that 35% (wrongly) said that “hate speech is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.”

Now since it’s narrowed to a subject hate speech I think this makes it easier to understand what makes people feel offensive about. His article made me think about whenever I should agree about the question from the beginning. 

First, do I personally think the amendment is outdated? Yes, as to I do agree in a form of that people shouldn’t abuse freedom of speech with opinionated racial words that are offensive. I think that if people want to be part of the world they should provide facts. So in conclusion I do agree that the government should prevent people create offensive statements.

Viewing my Peers

Today I’m reviewing an article by Iris Osornio, Why Should Hillary Clinton Win, I choose this article to read because I’d like to understand my peers point of view about the campaign for 2015. From first glance, I tried to give the benefit of a doubt. The intricate article wasn’t difficult to comprehend what Osornio wanted to write about, which was Hillary being a woman President would be a symbolic accomplishment to the U.S.. 

The first sentence is straight forward, “With the 2016 Presidential Elections coming up Hillary Clinton has decided to run for president and so has Donald Trump,” although I do wonder why Trump was mention when he isn’t mentioned that much in this editorial. Clinton has more competition with her other Democratic candidates that are male than just Trump.

Although, the rest of the article does fall short unfortunately, the poor use of excess of facts don’t need to be included, which doesn't help to convince me why I should vote Hillary. This doesn’t support as evidence on why Hillary Clinton should be president, “ Many other countries in their time of existing have had many woman for rulers whether its as a queen or a prime minister Norway , Britain, Lithuania ect. have all been rules by females.”

It is very clear that she is supportive of Clinton, because she doesn’t acknowledge the other Republican candidate, Carly Fiorina, who is also a women. “Are we really against women leading our country?”

In all honestly, for the rest of the article, I don’t need to comment on, sounds like an informative essay, and the editor did not provide a source of an article to support evidence. 

There could have been more potential to the article if there was a provided source and more facts that relate to Hillary’s campaign on her opinions now. Instead of comments that are implied for Hillary but could be easily replaced with someone else's name. I wonder if the Editor watched the Democratic Debate. I, myself, wrote an article about it that involved Hillary. 

At least the positive outcome is that my peers are trying to understand politics, so you can't deny that this could be part of a small step.