When & Where Should Dissent Be Limited?
America runs better when ideas and opinions are questioned and asked to be defended by hard evidence, but to what extent should this dissent be limited? For example, one can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater due to a "clear and present danger" even though the 1st amendment protects people's freedom of speech. There are also many regulations present in school and business codes that limit speech as well.
During a news conference on the 2018 midterm elections, President Trump called on Jim Acosta for questions, CNN's chief White House correspondent. Acosta "challenged Trump's use of the word 'invasion' to describe the [migrant] caravan and asked the president if he thought he had demonized immigrants." Trump averted the question by trying to answer questions from other journalists, but Acosta persisted and this time asked about "possible indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller based on the ongoing investigation into Trump's presidential campaign." Trump kept repeating "that's enough" and critiqued how Acosta is a "rude [and] terrible person." Click here to read the article and watch the clip.
Do you think Trump is deliberately trying to dodge Acosta's questions? In my opinion, if the tables were turned and a more conservative journalist were asking questions that are more geared towards insulting the democratic party, Trump would answer without retaliation. Furthermore, as a result of Acosta's actions, they have banned him from the White House and some have even gone as far to say that he "karate-chopped" a White House intern's arm when she was trying to grab the mic from Acosta. What are the pros and cons to his dissent in that moment? Did he and CNN benefit or lose more from getting his hard press banned? Why do we need more people to challenge the ideas and opinions of someone with so much authority?
Lots of great ideas here, sender. I especially like your opening sentence where you discuss the importance of "hard evidence." this is so important! A great habit for good thinkers to cultivate is to ask questions like, "what makes you believe that?", "What's your evidence to back that up?", and "Who's your source and why is he/she credible?"
ReplyDeleteTons of connections to "The Crucible" here, too . . .
I agree that dissent is a very important fundamental in America that we should value. Therefore, I do think that Acosta’s Questions were appropriate. As Americans, we have the right to speak up or ask questions if something seems unreasonable. That is exactly what Acosta did and Trump clearly tried to eliminate his free speech. Acosta is doing the right thing to sue the White House in order to bring awareness to the importance of dissent.
ReplyDeleteI agree that dissent is what drives the country to keep progressing and moving to become a more fair and prosperous country. But I also believe there is a time and place for everything. Asking the President of The United States questions is so important to keeping the Governemnt honest and fair, but must be done with a great deal of respect even when you might disagree with the answers your job is to report the answers. After watching the video it is my opinion that Mr. Acosta was looking for an answer that he wanted. It is his job to ask the questions and report on the answers given, not debate the President or lecture him. I think his tone and demeanor could have been more respectful, as well as President Trump’s tone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that dissent is what causes society to progress and its an important quality to have when discussing political topics. With this, I do also believe that Acosta was fair to ask because questions like these help push the reasoning and expand thoughts so all angles are looked at. Acosta is justified to sue the White House because it raises awareness towards the questions asked and how President Trump handled Acosta's dissent.
ReplyDelete