pretty please? here's the essay, you can just post your opinions on clarity, as I seem to have a problem with rambling during essays. and point out any glaring errors you catch, if you would be so kind. Question B: discussion and free speech One of the things that Americans are most proud of when it comes to their country is how much it prizes free speech. The fact that, in theory, anyone can voice any belief without fearing retribution is admirable. However, based on the free speech questions that have plagued the country since its inception, the idea is not as clear cut as it may first appear. We all accept that at some point there will have to be a line drawn that marks where speech stops being protected and starts being dangerous or illegal. But where do we draw the line? As much as we all hate Nazis, should they have the right to march? How about handing out pamphlets? What about speech that may endanger the country? Should speech be restricted more in times of war? Where do we draw our line? This defines the biggest question facing free speech in the United States. Discussion is dependent on free speech. Being as one of main ideas behind discussion is bringing up new ideas, unrestricted speech is more likely than highly restricted speech to foster productive discussion because there is nothing that cannot be said. Of course this is highly unlikely to occur. So the best that can be done is a close approximation to unrestricted speech, where only speech that poses an imminent threat to people can be restricted. As earlier demonstrated, much of the reasoning behind limiting speech has to do with people wanting to prevent others from voicing opinions that they find distasteful. However, the idea of free speech was not put in place to protect speech that no one is likely to object to. The speech that is meant to be protected is the speech that actually needs it, the speech that a majority of the population disagrees with and does not wish to hear, for this is the speech most likely to be blocked. It is discussion of beliefs that society sees as wrong, twisted, or in some other way deeply shameful that restrictions on free speech seek to prevent, so it seems counterintuitive that the solution to the question of what speech to restrict lies in more discussion. Many of the issues that society would like to bar from open discussion are not inherently hazardous to the nations well being; they simply do not mesh with the views held by the majority of society. Furthermore, most opinions are backed by some sort of logic and reasoning, even if it is faulty. So rather than restrict objectionable speech, it would be far more productive to simply discuss the reasoning behind them. Either the opinions might seem less repugnant to society once it is fully understood, or the logical discussion could lead someone to abandon flawed opinions. Even if these desirable outcomes do not occur, allowing objectionable opinions to be shared publicly could prevent them from being shared in even less desirable ways. For example, the Nazis mentioned earlier, if prevented from having their march, may go underground to spread their ideology, where they are less easily scrutinized. Or, they may go to more dramatic lengths to get their message heard and hurt someone to make a statement. Also, hearing the opinions of people they disagree so spectacularly with may help strengthen the publics disinclination to agree with them. The idea here, in essence, is that more discussion is never harmful. In most cases, discussion of an issue does not exacerbate it, and usually it results in the opposite: greater understanding of the dilemma and a greater likelihood that it will be resolved in a way that is amenable to all parties involved. In short, the idea that discussion exacerbates free speech problems is almost ludicrous in that there is no way to resolve them without discussion.