Freedom of Speech and My Right to Silence at Bath Time

Freedom of speech is our right to communicate with each other, and this is the right of people to express their opinions. People can say, write and express anything they want anytime. Human beings are born to become free because they are born in the same way and all people are created equal. Everyone has his/her right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right is essential and even vital. Hence, it should be protected in the United States. Citizens of the United States can enjoy liberties because the core of their appeal is freedom of speech. Consequently, Americans have a moral and strategic interest in supporting these values in their country. On the other hand, freedom of speech creates a positive and negative side in society.

In the article, Freedom of Speech and My Right to Silence at Bath Time, there is no clear cut case of one group being right and the other being wrong. The writer does not call for and does not set a rule. He just claims that there is no solution to treat this problem. The only way is to protect the freedom of speech that is considered to be the basic right in the United States. However, I find that I should protect the freedom of speech because in case we limit our speech, our life becomes slavery and a person loses control over the course of his/her life. I believe that freedom of speech includes the principles that stand behind true liberation. Absence of speech freedom deprived people of the right to express their mind. In addition, many good ideas would not exist in our society. People should protect their freedom of speech as it is a social necessity and the right given to all people around the globe.

There are two sides to the controversy. One side supports commercial speech. In the article, Freedom of Speech and My Right to Silence at Bath Time, Waldmeir points out that “it is a question of commercial free speech, advertisers have a right to broadcast their wares, but consumers have a right to refuse to listen” (591). The article argues that people have the right to listen or not, but people do not have the right to ban or block any commercial call, because it will affect the freedom of speech in the United States. On the other side, commercial calls are going to be blocked, because consumers want their freedom to have peace and quiet without any calls. The author states that “the federal do- not- call registry, which allows Americans to assert their right to silence by banning commercial telemarketing” (591), but this is not a good reason to block any commercial call. It is explained by the fact that we cannot ignore other people’s right. It means that advertisers also have their right to express their mind and to call anyone they want. The idea behind the freedom of speech is to respect other people and our society for the reason that everyone needs freedom of speech, and it is our benefit to express our voice without any consequence. As we know that freedom of speech brings a lot of advantages to our society. It helps the democratic society through our ability to discuss our ideas without any bad consequence. However, if we limit our freedom of speech, we may not be allowed to discover the truth.

Secondly, nowadays, people love using cell phones to commutate with their friends and parents. It is considered to be a very convenient way to get connected to someone you know. Continuously improving technology provides us with the opportunity to live in a generation that is aware of all what happens around us. Many companies and advertisers like using cell phones to sell their goods or promote their companies. It creates another problem for consumers since they get too many annoying commercial calls. People receive sales calls even if they do not want to be informed. Therefore, people try to stop unwanted telephone marketing calls. Sometimes, people hate commercial calls, because they are taking up their time while studying, driving or working. Such calls are really annoying. When you pick up your cell phone and you find that it is any of your friends or parents, you are upset or nervous. Telemarketers promote their items to consumers despite the fact that consumers are not interested in these items. These promotions take our precious time.

The author points out that “the government had no right to discriminate between a sales pitch from AT&T and one from the Policemen’s Benevolent Association” (Waldmeir 592). It means that the government does not have the right to block commercial speech in the United States. Commercial speech refers to advertisers who have the right to broadcast and speak promoting their services and goods. Also, there is no way to ban any commercial call as a commercial speech gets less protection. However, a good reason needs to be provided by the government in order to hinder it unless it is fraudulent. Any commercial speech is a part of speech freedom. If we lose commercial speech, it means we do not have the right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, commercial calls just aim at getting information about their consumers and improving their services and products. Companies need to communicate with their consumers to know what consumers are likely to buy and to get some feedback from them. They just want to do their work better. Hence, we should not think that commercial calls are illegal only because they are annoying. We have to respect the rights of other people to communicate with us.

According to the article, consumers want their freedom to have peace and quiet without any commercial calls as they seek no interference with their privacy. Any person’s privacy shall not be an arbitrary interference and everyone is entitled to legal protection against such interference. The right to privacy reminds us that people have the right to be let alone. However, in my opinion, it is not enough to block any commercial call, because the word “privacy” has been used to describe a personal condition. Accounting to the article, “… telemarketers have rights too. We all share the same constitution: somehow, it must protect us all” (Waldmeir 592). It means that our personal privacy cannot affect other people, and if consumers try to ban commercial call, they hinder telemarketer’s privacy to call you. I understand that privacy is very important to everyone because everyone has secrets, and privacy helps us to protect ourselves, which means people have the right to choose whether to share their personal information or not. Privacy is a fundamental human right, without privacy people may have no choice to do or say anything they want. As a result, people may feel a lack of security. Nowadays, it is hard to protect privacy. New technology development makes privacy control more challenging because people are connected to one another via Facebook or other social websites. Everything can be copied and pasted; privacy is no longer just a means for the protection of personal or private information. Each time when one fills out a profile, posts comments, posts a video, sends a photo to his/her friends, or uploads some information, one may expose his/her privacy to all. People face the problem of privacy everywhere. Even photographers hinder people’s privacy. Do we need to ban photography because it violates the right to privacy? We have to know that everyone’s privacy is unlikely to be fully protected, and everyone’s definition of privacy is not the same. Delivery is nothing more than information on the website, whether you are chatting, shopping, or to search for information online, your whereabouts can be recorded. Therefore, there is no way to ban commercial calls, because they interfere with your life and privacy, and there is nothing that is really private.

The author would like the government to impose rules for telemarketers, and she is frustrated about the imposition of the “do-not-call” registry. Telemarketers should be able to speak and sell a product, but when they invade our homes without our permission, they are crossing a line. Perhaps we should never answer the phone. We are bombarded with the controversy and our lives are constantly invaded whether we like it or not. Some panel or group of executives on a committee somewhere in determining what we should see and hear. This is absurd. A person should be the one to decide whether we see or listen. Telemarketers are violating people’s right to decide, and as a result, they hang up on them mid-sentence. In many cases, the government is violating our right to decide, and this is a blight and an insult to the general public.

To sum up, I think freedom of speech is very important in the United States because it allows people to express their views and helps to protect liberty in the country. So people have the opportunity to speak and discuss. Nevertheless, I hate commercial calls and spam. I find them annoying, but it is not that important to block telemarketers, because it is their freedom of speech. Anyway, we have the right to refuse it. I understand that in the United States all of us share the same constitution, and we all have the freedom of speech. Therefore, I disagree with the idea to block the commercial calls as it will affect free speech in America. The right to free speech is one of the most important rights an individual has as an American. Without a doubt, each of us should have the right to enjoy freedom of speech. Speech is very important for people to communicate. As we know, a commercial call is a part of the freedom of speech, we have to allow telemarketers to call us any time because this is their right. My conclusion for freedom of expression is positive because it allows everyone to express their ideas. Hence, we should not change the right to speak, and we all have to protect this foundational right. This right is given to everyone and we have to respect everyone’s opinion. I believe people who enjoy freedom do their best to protect it having a better chance to access to the truth. I think expression freedom is about all and it does not matter whether a person is wrong or right, one has to respect each other’s right to express personal views.