Apology, pages 61-70

"I do not think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument" (Section 35c, page 63).

In this text, Socrates is using himself as an example. Whatever I have read about him, he has not really asked questions about himself. He is usually asking about some random individual, but this time, he shows that he is censoring himself and asking the jury if they think it is right to put him to death or not. Also, I think this text could be good to bring up in the trial: "should Socrates have been put to death or should he have lived?" I might use this as my topic for the trial if we ever have a debate on it.

Apology pages 51-61

"I am not going to alter my conduct, nor even if I have to die a hundred deaths" (page 56, 30c).

This sentence is related to the trial of Socrates because it shows that Socrates was willing to make a decision to accept his penalty as punishment for what he did. He was willing to be sentenced to death. It also brings up a point that Socrates was probably someone who fought in a war before and that he did fight in some of the wars that led up to the trial. It is saying that he is willing to sacrifice his life a hundred times to protect lots of people. So if you look at it in a certain way, he is kind of a savior.

The Apology

"Here is another good point. Tell me seriously, Meletus, is it better to live in a good or in a bad community?" (page 50, section C6-9)

I think the prosecution could use this line because Socrates was born when Athens and Persia were at war and just starting. This question seems like it is asking a good question about where is the best place to live. It seems like it would be better to live in a good community because Sparta, Athens and Persia were all in this argument anyways and Socrates was just in the middle of it. I think it would be better to not be in the war and be in a good community.

Athenian Values in Pericles' Funeral Oration

Honor
Courage
Glory
Democracy
Judgment
Equality
Openness
Love of ancestors

Judgment is something that is complicated to determine. It depends on the subject and what the consequences and action could be. It's one of the most important actions that you have to take in life every day. It's a very big part of philosophy.

Jigsaw

1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic. (a couple of sentences)

This article was about whether freedom is important to America or not. My debate resolution is that an average American would define freedom as being able to do what s/he wants and get what s/he wants.

2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)

In the First Amendment, the freedom they give us is limited and this is for a good reason. This is because we want to have an organized and civilized country and community. Without the First Amendment, we might not have gotten to where we are today in terms of being a civilized society. Freedom is something that most people want in daily life, but we don't always get it. For instance, I just learned that you can't always do what you want, you have to work to earn that freedom because you don't deserve to be free if you haven't done anything to prove your freedom. One thing about freedom is that some people who don't have money or jobs, or are struggling in school, they may not want to work to get these things, but the only way you can get something in life today is to work for what you want and work for a living. It is basically survival of the fittest. The ones that aren't the fittest are the ones who are getting hurt.

3) Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side (2-4 sentences total).

CON:
--My definition for freedom is that you can say as much as you want, but if the laws say something different because we are limited in our freedoms.
--Not everyone can say what they want and do what they want, especially if they don't have money or are part of a minority. Often it is more difficult for these people to express themselves and be listened. For example, the Klu Klux Klan makes it difficult for certain people to do and say what they want.

PRO:
--The First Amendment gives people choices and protects them if they say what they want because it gives them freedom of speech.
--The First Amendment also gives people the freedom to believe what they want to believe so they can do what they want.

"The press should be censored in times of crisis."

My reading selection is pro and is called "The Press Should Not Be Censored During Times of Crisis."

Three things that support the pro position:

1. "The only effective restraint upon executive policy and power. . .may lie in an enlightened citizenry."
2. "Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving people."
3. "The stakes are high. America's great strength has been produced by an open society, where every policy was subject to great debate."

I don't think the press should be censored because I think people have the right to know the truth. Also in the First Amendment it says "that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . ." (Amendment I, page 127). Therefore, the press has every right to give the people the truth, whether people want to believe or not. And people have the right to determine whether they want to believe the press or not. Also, in Viewpoint there is a quote "A press that is alert, aware and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened citizenry" (page 48) which backs up what the First Amendment says about the press and it also brings up another point about the purpose of the press. The purpose of the press is to be able to write down what is actually happening and citizens should be able to decide whether they want to know about the information the press is giving them. It is each person's choice whether to listen or read what the press is saying.

Censorship Debate

1) For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.

--"Copyright are one of the oldest forms of censorship."
--Censorship is not "always and everywhere a threat to our very freedom." Censorship of triple XXX porn on Saturday mornings" is probably a good thing.
--"Campaign finance laws" regulate free speech and this is a good limit to freedom of speech.

2) For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.

--First Amendment protects people's ability to express their opinions and it's good to hear what other people are thinking.
--The government shouldn't be able to decide whose opinions are "hateful."
--Freedom of speech is a good way to gain knowledge and find truth.

3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.

My opinion about free speech is that it is something that I have a right to, but I don't have a thorough understanding of what it is or what is involved in it. I agree that things like pornography and racism should be limited. I believe that free speech doesn't mean that everyone is insulting each other 24 hours a day. I believe the laws are made for a reason that helps to keep things in order. I believe free speech is a right, but that there are times when that right needs to be controlled to an extent. I usually don't state my opinion on politics because I don't understand what politicians do. Since I don't know, I don't feel like I should say anything. I do agree with one sentence in the article where it says that speech should be protected. I don't think we should let the government decide what is protected because I think they have been biased against minorities. Free speech lets you be an individual but you have to decide what is worth sharing with others. Government is supposed to keep us in order, but they shouldn't jump into our business.