Strossen a Strong or Weak Argument Essays

Strossen a Strong or Weak Argument Essays Strossen a Strong or Weak Argument Essay Strossen a Strong or Weak Argument Essay The title of Strossens essay, Sexual Speech and the Law, is simultaneously indicative and of the issues discussed in the article (and the substance of Strossens   thesis) and   obfuscatory regarding the   essential conclusions forwarded by Strossen in her essay. While Strossen, indeed, places emphasis in her discussion on the ramifications of sexually connotative free speech and expression or the censorship thereof by federal courts or other government institutions, the article, when taken as a whole, relates more appropriately to the issue of free speech itself; most specifically, the concept of bad tendencies in free speech as defined by the United States Supreme Court.Strossens thesis is fairly simple: the maintenance of liberal free speech standards will lead to the healthy social absorption of pornography much more efficaciously than suppression of pornography, under MacDworkinism, which Strossen argues   would ultimately lead to a slippery slope of legislation and court -rulings destined to undermine all institutions of free speech which, in turn, would lead to the disastrous erosion of the democratic principles on which America was, itself, founded. Strossens argument appears well reasoned and persuasive; however,   it is in many ways specious and suffers from examples of logical fallacy, most notably those which pertain to slippery slope, false dilemma, and post-hoc (or doubtful case) elements of rhetoric and argument.Throughout the essay, Strossen forwards what are seemingly valid and well-reasoned points; however, she often obscures the most important of these points by way of weak argument and rhetoric which suffers from traditional logical fallacies. Her argument, taken in total, is largely founded   on a slippery slope fallacy, one which pertains to domino effect erosion of free speech institutions based on admission of any form of censorship of pornographic free speech. Strossen also invokes a number of unsupported claims in her essay, notably the root assumption at the essays opening that Americas Puritanical heritage has placed an undue emphasis on sexual activity as an indication of personal morality. However appealing such a generalization may appear on the surface, the claim is entirely unsupported, here, and Strossens ensuing argument is deeply colored by this initial instance of weak argument and logical fallacy. This assumption can also be regarded as an example of post-hoc fallacy in that Strossen is in effect saying: because America has an historical connection to Puritanism and Christianity, all Americans are sexually repressed and prudish.Strossens weak argumentative tendencies continue with her positing of   MacDworkinism as the primary counter-argument to her own ideas. This constitutes a straw-man fallacy in that Strossen fails to admit alternative counter-viewpoints to her own and instead allows her inquiry to devolve into a considered point-by-point demolition of MacDworkinism without bothering to define the MacDworkin doctrine by any standard other than those of potential negative consequences.   Rather than examining MacDworkinism as the central issue of the essay, Strossen utilizes the straw man technique to elevate her argument to more general, and less easily defined, issues: such as those of free speech itself.The entirety of Strossens thesis is predicated on the aforementioned domino theory that any suppression of free speech other than that which emerges from an issue of public safety will ultimately lead to suppression of free speech itself, without exception, which will undermine democracy.   In order to rebut the all-but-inevitable response to this slippery slope argument: the notion of nuanced or incremental controls over the dissimenation of free speech (rather than its censorship) are avoided by Strossen, who, instead batters away at MacDworkinism and in so doing commits another rhetorical fallacy, that of false dilemma.: there is merely a choice between Mac Dworkinism or free speech and nothing in-between.Although Strossens assertion that control of free speech based on the Supreme Courts ruling involving bad tendencies would ultimately lead to the suppression of all free speech is emotionally   fluent, her logical and rhetorical strategies actually do more to undermine the validity of her assertions than to elucidate them in many instances. Though Strossen attempts to   draw a direct connection between free-speech controls involving pornography and larger issues of civil liberties, her argument is based almost solely on the straw man and slippery slope concepts of MacDworkinism and the erosion of civil liberties. She states explicitly that if MacDworkinism should prevail in the courts, it would jeopardize all of the foregoing free-speech precedents and principles. (Strossen 464) .Strossens fairly thorough examination of the Brandenberg V. Ohio Supreme Court Case and its ultimate resolution offers one of the most well-reasoned and persuasive sections of the essay. For this particular element of her argument, Strossen should be credited with presenting a compelling and adequately substantiated constitutionally based argument for   the present day interpretation of   the bad tendency paradigm.   However, her conclusion, that modern feminist are, indeed, seeking a return to the now-discredited bad tendency paradigm is an instance of oversimplification. In point of fact, there is nothing to suggest that a future Supreme Court interpretation of inciteful speech or even of the bad tendency paradigm would lead to the specific events Strossen cites from the past or for the specific events Strossen posits as likely outcomes in the future should such legislative and judicial interpretations are admitted. It is of course useful to look to historical precedent for contemporary interpretations of law and even of   social norms; however, the nightmarish scenario which Strossen extrapolates from her otherwise co gent study of specific case-histories in the Supreme Court is largely, if not wholly, unsubstantiated.By resorting to logical and rhetorical fallacies in the midst of an otherwise well-reasoned and well-researched essay, Strossen not only undermines her own political and social points, she obscures them which results in a weak presentation of her thesis and its ensuing conclusions. By resorting to the use of the straw man, slippery slope, Post Hoc, and oversimplification, among the other fallacies which have been cited above, Strossen allows her potential reader to engage emotionally with her argument but not consistently rationally. Because the nature of the argument is, itself, based at least partially on the emotional resonance and volatility of the issue of free-speech itself, Strossen undermines her most poignant and meaningful points relevant to the issues of censorship and pornography and reduces what might have been eloquently stated principles to fallacies.Perhaps the most compelling element of Strossens argument is that idea that free speech is, itself, the best measure against the misogynistic and offensive nature of pornographic free speech. her positing of the idea that the guarantee of free speech for women and feminists would be more efficacious in the long run than censorship of pornography, is a deeply appealing and intensely provocative idea. Unfortunately, it, like many of Strossens other points in thee essay, is delivered without evidence or example, so it is both a generalization and and unsupported claim. Strossen, overall, presents a compelling argument,but one which is obfuscated behind her unfortunate choice of and rhetorical strategies.;