• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

After the printing of the picture of the prophet of Islam, Mohammed, the moral line has been crossed but there seems to be no condemning of the actions by other European countries. In fact a few have

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Free speech argument doesn't condone publishing After the printing of the picture of the prophet of Islam, Mohammed, the moral line has been crossed but there seems to be no condemning of the actions by other European countries. In fact a few have merely fuelled the flames by reprinting the pictures in their papers, something I am glad that our nation has prevented itself from doing. 'Religious extremism Vs Free speech' is what Sarah Joseph of the Guardian described it as, and I feel there is no better way to put it. According to a statement made by the Danish paper, they feel that have a right, as an independent media tool, to print whatever they like as long at they can justify it. In a country that prides itself on free speech, their justification is clear. They had a right to print it. But surely with this right to have freedom of speech comes with it a responsibility to those who have access to what they print? As Gary Younge put it, 'If newspapers have a right to offend, then surely their targets have a right to be offended?' An argument for the cartoons being printed is that they are not meant to offend anyone intentionally. ...read more.

Middle

Examples of these are 'This is not a cartoon war' written by Anas Altukriti and 'I respect your articles of faith - will you respect mine?' written by Timothy Garston. Another reason for wanting it to be published in the Guardian is because of its respected position in the UK as a broad sheet paper. If published in this paper, compared to The Sun for example, it lends more weight to my argument. My main intention is not to influence the reader into my way of thinking, but merely provoke thought amongst the audience with the arguments I put forward. I expect the readers of this broad sheet to be able to understand the language used in the editorial. This is useful because I use new, complex language, such as 'Islamophobia'. I also expect the reader to have previous knowledge about the subject before reading the editorial. I have used deductive reasoning as the main structure of my monologue. This means that I have stated my principles first, then come to a conclusion. This is based on the belief that I feel the majority of the audience will agree with me. '...something I am glad that our nation has prevented itself from doing.' ...read more.

Conclusion

I have ended the middle three paragraphs with rhetorical questions. If newspapers have a right to offend, then surely their targets have a right to be offended? Sympathising with the good people of the Islamic faith and not fuelling their fears would surely be a better idea. Right? Is the western world not guilty of double standards? This is not only to put thoughts into the reader's head, as they don't need to answer the question because the answer is obvious. But by placing it at the end of those paragraphs, I have tied up my main arguments in a strong way. To conclude, I have used many rhetoric devices in the final paragraph. This was to really get my point across to the reader, as it is the last impression that my argument would have on the reader. I have used the rule of three, repetition of 'not to the point', and alliteration of the sound 'b'. 'Free speech should be encouraged without a doubt, but not to the point of bullying a religion. Not to the point of bashing their integrity. And not to the point of betraying the good work that the majority of this religion does for this world.' The short sentences used makes the three statements stand out more. ?? ?? ?? ?? Nyasha Sakutukwa ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. What are Mill’s four main arguments in defence of freedom of speech?

    Mill produces the example of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'noble savage'. Rousseau wrote on the nobility of a simple life out with society and the corrupting influence of 'civilisation'. This ran entirely contrary to the belief of the vast majority of that civilised society which held that there was little similarity between

  2. Do you know you are reading this question?

    are seemingly unanswerable and it is necessary to enquire 'from what impression is that supposed idea derived.' This is due to Hume's belief that every idea begins in impressions. I interpret this as Hume inferring that, for it to be an idea that is discussable it must first have begun in experience.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work