Mendenhall Freedom of Speech Liberty and Authority Paper Just follow the feedback at the bottom of the file “LiuDraft.docx”; then rewrite the paper with th

Mendenhall Freedom of Speech Liberty and Authority Paper Just follow the feedback at the bottom of the file “LiuDraft.docx”; then rewrite the paper with the sources you can find in file “PaperOutlineLiu.docx”; finally, this paper should be written in MLA format, thank you so much!! Media Management Ethics
Dr. Patterson
Xiaofan Liu
4/11/19
Paper Draft
Freedom of Speech does not justify causing unnecessary to harm others.
Around May 2, 2011, Rashard Mendenhall, a running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers,
tweeted his thoughts about celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
After some Americans greeted news of the killing of Bin Laden with cheers, Mendenhall
tweeted: “What kind of person celebrates death?” and “It’s amazing how people can
HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We’ve only heard one side.” Public
response was immediate. Mendenhall’s tweets resulted in a spike from 13,621 to 36,914
in his Twitter “followers” and a backlash from people who found his statement
inappropriate or offensive (Pye & Stroud 1).”
John Mill’s theory of utility and “harm-principle” can be support the argument that free
speech does not justify causing harm. He stated that in terms of freedom of speech, limits of
liberty and authority often become the central discussion. Even if the First Amendment supports
the free speech and press, it alludes to Mill’s harm principle. From Mill’s point of view, selfprotection is the only reason that people could interfere others’ liberty; in other words, he stated
that the authority of people which could be held on their hand is to keep themselves from
harmfulness (Williams).
Utilitarianism can help to argue that Mendenhall’s content of tweet harms others’ goods. There
have always been the similarities among events in history. Champion fired Mendenhall as an
endorser since he had posted the tweet seemingly against the majorities’ attitudes toward
assassination of Osama Bin Laden; the rental car company fired Simpson after he was alleged
domestic abuse in 1992… (Whitley 2011). “Whether Mendenhall had a point or not, there’s just
some subjects you don’t touch without damaging your personal brand — especially when they go
against the grain of what 99.9 percent of Americans believe” (Perlut 2011). His behavior had
damaged his reputation predictably, and the world expected his apology regarding to his neglect
of public concern and the common goods; however, he decided to sue Champion for violating his
contract (Perlut 2011).
“This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw
in the event of a murder. I don’t believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one
of religion, morality, and human ethics,” he wrote. Later, as he claimed that he was just trying to
create a conversation, he said, “This controversial statement was something I said in response to
the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don’t believe that this is an issue of politics or
American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics,” he wrote, “I apologize for the
timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm;” further he said, “I apologize
to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that
was made and put in my name” (ESPN.com 2011) .
Levinas’ First Philosophy indicates that encountering with another person can be
supporting argument. According to Levinas’s philosophy, people live in this world are
encountering others and get affected by the other,
We are always already in social relations; more importantly, we have always already
been impacted by the expression of a living other. Because this impact is affective,
because transcendence is not conceptualizable, we forget the force the other’s expression
has on us. We therefore carry on, in our respective worlds, motivated by our desire for
mastery and control. Nevertheless, desire in Totality and Infinity always proves to be
double. There is a naturalistic desire, subject to imperatives of consumption and
enjoyment. This desire is coextensive with the exercise of our concrete freedom,”
Levinas argued (Bergo 2006).
He mentioned the core element of intersubjective life, this also the encounter that Levinas
illustrated from internal and external. Furthermore, in terms of his Face-to-face philosophy, he
stated that when people are encountering one-another, they have the responsibility to each other — “It calls the subject into “giving and serving” the Other (Wikipedia). Mendenhall’s behavior
did not subject into Levinas’s philosophy, while he was publishing that tweet. He did not think
about feelings of the Other. In Face-to-face philosophy, Levinas speaks of the face of the other
who is “widow, orphan or stranger” (Wikipedia). People who read Mendenhall’s tweet have
possibilities to be one of these special groups. Since the tragical 9/11 happened, the issue of
terrorism has been significantly serious worldwide. People shows their empathy intrinsically
with no doubts because no one does not feel the extraordinary sadness while they were facing
this tragedy with the other in this community.
Mendenhall had been always emphasized his freedom of speech. Regarding to the First
Amendment, freedom of speech is meant to be free to engage to the communicative actions, not
strategic actions (Solum 1989). There has always been problematic to interpret the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The case of Mendenhall’s tweet is a good one to work with because you can judge the
ethics of what he did. I think your analysis of the case still needs considerable work. Herre are
my suggestions for revision:
1. You need a Works Cited list of your references on this paper. Consult the website
PurdueOwl. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html?vm=r
2. I am not sure that you have the right focus in your paper. Free speech grants you
the right to say what you please without interference from the government. It does
not protect you from the consequences of that speech. Your focus can be whether
Mendenhall should have tweeted what he did – or you can analyze whether the
consequences of his actions were appropriate and judge those who took action
against him. But I do not see that there is any free speech issue here. Of course,
he had the right to express his opinion, just as others had the right to take action
against him.
3. Your grammar and word choices are not always clear. You can seek help at the
Writing Center on the second floor of College Hall.
Media Management Ethics
Dr. Patterson
Xiaofan Liu
3-22-19
Freedom of Speech does not justify causing unnecessary to harm others.
John Mill’s theory of utility and “harm-principle” can be supporting argument.
Utilitarianism can be supporting argument. It can help to argue that Mendenhall’s content of
tweet harms others’ goods.
Levinas’ First Philosophy indicates that encountering with another person can be supporting
argument.
Work Cited:
Williams, Leonard, “The First Amendment Encyclopedia —— John Stuart Mill”,
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1258/john-stuart-mill, The first Amendment
Encyclopedia.
Sunstein, Cass R., “Democracy and the problem of free speech”,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02680544, Publishing Research Quarterly (1995).
Whitley, David, “No, Rashard Mendenhall, your free-speech rights were not violated”,
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/192498-no-rashard-mendenhall-your-free-speechrights-were-not-violated, NFL, Published on Jul. 20, 2011.
Pye, Danee & Stroud, Scott R., “Defending Freedom of Tweets?”,
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/defending-freedom-tweets, University of Texas at
Austin.
Perlut, Aaron, “Rashard Mendenhall: Shut Yo Mouth!”,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2011/07/20/rashard-mendenhall-shut-yomouth/#4fb3f5fa70b3, Forbes, Jul 20, 2011.
“Rashard Mendenhall clarifies tweets”, http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=6478438,
ESPN.com news services, May 4th, 2011
Bergo, Bettina, “Emmanuel Levinas”, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/ , First
published Sun Jul 23, 2006
Florio, Mike, “Rashard Mendenhall raises eyebrows with bin Laden tweets”,
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/02/rashard-mendenhall-raises-eyebrows-with-binladen-tweets/, NBC Sports, on May 2, 2011.
Solum, Lawrence B., “Freedom of Communicative Action: A Theory of the First
Amendment Freedom of Speech”,
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2961&=&context=facpu
b&=&seiredir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253De
n%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C39%2526q%253Dfreedom%252Bof%252Bspeech%252Bfirst
%252Bamendment%2526btnG%253D%2526oq%253Dfreedom%252Bof%252Bspeech%252Bfi
rst%252Ba#search=%22freedom%20speech%20first%20amendment%22, Georgetown
University Law Center, 1989.
“Athletes face some legal risks with social networking”,
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=0450090891150120081241021180941270880330
430690020650540950990010921220720310130131230430280321040200430340831270650880
660020840220340640580040820660230840130311111240370420540081030730700041250930
84121001015126127122007066004098024016018070112065025073&EXT=pdf, Chicago
Daily, October 4, 2011.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment