31st Great American Think-Off
Announcing Honorable Mentions
Read Essays Below
In 2024, the Great American Think-Off Committee selected six honorable mentions, three on each side of the 2024 question, “Is freedom of speech worth the cost?”
The 2024 Honorable Mention Winners on the side of YES — freedom of speech IS worth the cost are (in alphabetical order): Manuel Monterrosa, Long Branch, New Jersey; Timothy Rogers, poet, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Tom Whelihan, education, Alexandria, Minnesota.
The 2024 Honorable Mention Winners on the side of NO — freedom of speech is NOT worth the cost are (in alphabetical order): Rick Brundage, political strategist, public speaking coach, and philosopher, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Emmanuel Maduabuchi, student, Enugu, Nigeria; Paul E. Terry, Editor in Chief, The American Journal of Health Promotion, Senior Fellow, The Health Enhancement Research Organization, Waconia, Minnesota.
Read the 2024 Honorable Mention Essays Below!
You can also learn more about the 2024 Great American Think-Off debate by clicking these links:
2024 Think-Off Debate Results 2024 Think-Off Finalist Essays Watch the 2024 Think-Off Debate on YouTubeManuel Monterrosa, Long Branch, New Jersey
YES, freedom of speech IS worth the cost
Have you ever spent hours scrolling through social media? Tuned into your favorite radio station or podcast? Binged both new and old tv shows and movies? Or delved into a captivating book? If so, consider: what do they all have in common? On the surface they may appear as pastimes until you dig deeper and realize they are all woven together by the fabric of one of our nation’s founding values: the freedom of speech.
Imagine for a moment, the podcasts discussing controversial topics, authors penning engaging and thought-provoking novels and filmmakers pushing the boundaries with their films. All of these creative expressions, from the memes that make you smile and laugh, to hard-hitting documentaries, thrive because of our right to freely express ideas.
But when there is light, there’s always going to be a shadow. When do we draw the line between freely expressing an idea or belief before it starts to become hateful and targeted? Recent events have thrusted this question into the national spotlight once more.
Yes, naturally this means that all ideas and beliefs from each individual are guaranteed, even ones that may be controversial. But some argue that our freedom of speech is not worth the cost, and this notion I disagree with.. It has shaped our values, principles, and worldview. Freedom of speech is worth the cost.
It’s true that freedom of speech is a legal principle but it represents much more than that, it’s the heartbeat of our democracy, pulsating through the veins of history and shaping our society to the present day. From our nation’s birth to now, this fundamental right has been the catalyst for monumental change.
Consider the pivotal role freedom of speech played in the abolition of slavery. Many individuals utilized newspapers, public debates, and stirring pamphlets to ignite a national conversation, sometimes confrontational and violent, which eventually led to the abolishment of the practice.
Fast forward to the fight for women’s suffrage. Through relentless activism, courageous women and their allies seized the power of free expression to demand equality at the ballot box. Their voices culminated in the passage of the 19th Amendment, helping to reinforce our vision for a democracy where all have a strong voice.
And who can forget the Civil Rights Movement? In the face of systemic racism and injustice, ordinary citizens of all colors dared to speak the truth. Through mass demonstrations, speeches, and non-violent protests, their brave efforts helped shatter the chains of segregation and paved the way for a more just society.
While we reflect on these historical victories, let us not forget about the present. We are currently living in the digital age, in which thoughts and opinions may be exchanged instantly with just a click of a button. Social media platforms function as a virtual town square where people from all walks of life can interact and have their opinions heard, breaking down traditional communication barriers. This not only makes it easier to acquire information fast, but it also helps to shape public opinion and drive change.
However, despite the assurance that individuals have the right to express themselves, a persistent question remains: when does an idea or viewpoint become protected by free speech before crossing the line into being considered hateful and targeted?
What is protected speech and harmful expression is blurred, prompting us to grapple with these difficult questions. It’s crucial to recognize that while freedom of speech is paramount, it does not absolve individuals from the consequences of their words. Words have power they can uplift, inspire, but they can also wound and incite violence.
That’s exactly where we are right now. The issue has gained national attention due to recent and past events, which prompts the question: how far can social media platforms go before many call it censorship? To what extent are college officials allowed to go before violating a student’s 1st Amendment right? This is a natural downside, one that is complicated and subjective, for our right to express ourselves.
While the challenges surrounding freedom of speech are complex, its invaluable role in shaping our society and country cannot be understated. Despite its drawbacks, the benefits of free speech far outweigh the costs. Let us continue to champion this fundamental right, ensuring that it remains a cornerstone of our democracy for generations to come, for a more just and enlightened society.
~~~
Timothy Rogers, poet, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
YES, freedom of speech IS worth the cost
I discovered of The Great American Think-Off indirectly through Allen Ginsberg’s poem, Howl. Because of that poem I am here to tell you that freedom of speech is a precious jewel. Poetry, particularly, as the pinnacle of linguistic expression, is unthinkable without free speech. Poems push and expand the boundaries of speech further than any other use of language.
Percy Shelley wrote that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. Art probes limits; legislators write and pass laws to set limits. Speech doesn’t exceed the value of human life. Personal safety outweighs our right to say anything, anywhere, anytime. This limit safeguards the overarching promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No false cries of fire in a crowded theater. No malicious libels and slanders. Free does not mean without limit. These limits are laws.
Upon publication Howl was accused of being “obscene”. Lawrence Ferlinghetti, the publisher, was hauled into court on a charge of subverting public morals. Individuals were offended by a long poem that likely would have gone largely unnoticed otherwise. No one is obligated to read material they find offensive. In the end it was found Howl had socially redeeming value and did not appeal strictly to prurient interests; the poem is not obscene, and enjoys all the protections of free speech.
On the internet nearly every topic and example of speech is available to the widest general readership the world has ever known. And some folks are livid about it, trying to curtail this freedom and limit public access to selected published works. Words that another group invariably finds essential and affirming. They confuse their outrage with a legal right not to be offended. They are entitled their outrage, but not a standing to trample the rights of others. Not wanting to hear is different than disallowing another to speak.
Wide swaths of people, following the opinions of a select few, inflate the issue out of proportion. With just a few mouse clicks now anybody can read, free of charge, the widest range of material imaginable. Most people still don’t choose to read poetry, but some still want certain poems banned. Statements composed with the greatest of care as artistic expressions, exploring every conceivable facet of life, both real and imagined, however marginal, narrow, outside the confines of the bell curve. Nothing purely prurient nor obscene, I am speaking of legal content with socially redeeming value, if only for the few and not the many.
Poetry has always paid the cost that comes with truth telling, with beauty for beauty’s sake, with its willingness to explore areas that mainstream society frequently finds disquieting, disruptive and preferably, for them, not left in the shadows but erased, expunged and forbidden. And so, generally speaking, poetry gets ignored, it goes unread by the majority. Poetry mostly exists outside of commercial viability, begging alms for support. It is free speech existing on the margin’s of capitalism’s free market principles. Supply outstrips demand. Fortunately this doesn’t negate its value.
Poets continue to explore and push boundaries, expressing ever more complex and disturbing truths. The truth is, free speech enriches society. Censorship impoverishes. Society suffers when truth lacks the ability to confront power, confront convention, confront stale and outdated truths. Truth compounds interest, and occasionally becomes the law, de jure or de facto. Truth shines through the accumulated dross of thoughtless routine. The easily disrupted and offended seek to suppress truths that make them uneasy. That wake them from their slumbers, interfere with the profits of business as usual, eschewing what is different, what taxes their stases. The rich tapestry of diversity.
The marginalized will always find ways to make their voices heard. Free speech sows seeds like weeds in the garden. You can’t eradicate weeds, a weed is any plant you don’t want growing where it is. Weeds are the biosphere, lending diversity, color and interest, good and bad. It’s impossible to legislate against weeds. They are more a state of mind than anything.
I was a student of Allen Ginsberg. He pushed against boundaries and forced into law a broader acceptance of societal value. Thanks to a poet’s thoughtfully composed words society lumbers forward, broadening and expanding the ideas that form the basis of civil society, planting seeds of acceptance. We cannot progress as a society unless we accept that the loss of free speech, the ability to dissent and to dream and to connect, is among the greatest treasures humanity knows.
~~~
Tom Whelihan, education, Alexandria, Minnesota
YES, freedom of speech IS worth the cost
Is Freedom of Speech Worth the Cost? This is a fundamental question that lies at the heart of our democracy.
The answer is a resounding and emphatic yes!
From the onset, I want to acknowledge that free speech is not a plenary right and should never be used with malice toward others. Its purpose is to support freedom, not diminish it. With that in mind, let us begin.
The purpose of my submission is to posit three points: 1. To assert that free speech is fundamental, 2. Constitutional democracies cannot practically exist without free speech, and 3. Freedom is predicated on the principle of free speech.
In this country, there are unlimited examples of individuals and member groups that have no voice. From the black woman who was incarcerated for five years for voting in good faith as an ex-felon (while high-level political leaders allegedly engage in unlawful election interference with no legal consequence) to the many Americans who live adjacent to toxic waste dumps, it is plain to observe in everyday life that those without a voice have no power. Limiting free speech would only amplify this inequity exponentially and disenfranchise millions of Americans.
Free speech, now more than ever, is an imperative necessary to counter the false narratives, conspiracy theories, alternate realities, and book banning proliferating as a result of the populism, culture wars, and social media craze today in America and around the world. Without free speech protections, autocratic-leaning populist leaders will attempt to rewrite history, marginalize minority groups, ban books, and continue to erode or eliminate fundamental rights. In the absence of free speech, these false narratives and alternate realities would proliferate unchecked. Having the freedom to speak truth to power unfettered by fear of retaliation provides a countervailing weight against those forces that would threaten the very foundation of our democracy.
Free speech is a fundamental requisite of a free society. Constitutional democracies by definition demand it and cannot exist without it! An individual simply cannot be free without the unfettered right to dissent, redress grievances, and speak truth to power!
Recognizing that free speech has an opportunity cost is not a reasonable argument for limiting speech. Yes, there will be times when it stirs up controversy, ignites passion, and unfortunately, sometimes leads to violence. However, the alternative is far worse. Imagine a world where you would forfeit your liberty interest for simply dissenting and holding different political views from the leaders in power. You were merely acting in good faith and suffered a fate similar to Alexei Navalny in Russia. Suspending free speech would not only have a chilling effect on speech, it would pervade every aspect of personhood and potentially threaten your most important liberty interest, i.e., your life.
As long as we live our lives within the boundaries of the rule of law, a free society demands that individuals have the necessary agency to live out their days unshackled by the chains of tyranny, oppression, and censorship! This agency is predicated on our fundamental right to free speech. The right to possess and express our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors is a requisite for the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. Freedom and free speech are inextricably intertwined. One simply cannot exist without the other.
Free speech goes beyond verbal speech. It embodies the essence of intentionality and agency. By limiting speech you necessarily limit a person’s power. It is by no accident that in every totalitarian country, free speech is censored. The primary purpose is to squelch dissent and enforce compliance; the very antithesis of freedom and a free people. The cost is simply too high!
Free speech is the friend of democracy. It accommodates, includes, and expands the commons. Censorship is the friend of autocracy. It assimilates, excludes, and shrinks the commons. It serves the interests of the few at the expense of the many.
Every American must defend our democracy by pledging allegiance not only to our flag but to the principles of freedom and free speech embodied in our constitution. If, as a nation, we believe the cost of free speech is too high, then we necessarily extrapolate from that premise that the price of democracy is too high. An altogether unacceptable proposition for a people and a country predicated on Lincoln’s idea that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
~~~
Rick Brundage, political strategist, public speaking coach, and philosopher, Minneapolis, Minnesota
NO, freedom of speech is NOT worth the cost
Our modern marketplace of ideas is broken. Too many of us lack the ability to critically analyze information to allow our market to effectively function. Even worse, many of us are illiterate consumers in a speech environment that is characterized by the predatory behavior of powerful groups. Finally, our speech has become so divisive and divorced from personal responsibility that it undermines the purpose of free speech itself. For these reasons, free speech is not worth the cost.
First, the assumption that the best ideas rise to the top when allowed to compete with each other in an open exchange relies on the public being given the tools to be savvy consumers of information. Increasingly, this is not the case. Researchers at Stanford University did a study of high schoolers’ media literacy skills. Researchers tested more than 3000 students on their ability to evaluate sources, evidence, and argument. Out of the six items that researchers tested, they found that 90% of students received a failing response on four of the six items. More than two-thirds of students could not tell the difference between a news article and sponsored content. In another study by Media Literacy Now, only 38% of adults reported receiving any training on how to critically analyze media.
As a former debate teacher, I can tell you I saw this first hand. Unless students are actively seeking out opportunities to learn evidence evaluation, logical fallacies, and statistics, our educational system leaves us woefully under-prepared to deal with the deluge of media available to us. For generations, we have failed to equip our young people with the skills that they need to be savvy consumers of media, and as adults, we’re often too distracted with the next TikTok that is instantly delivered to us to critically evaluate the one we just saw.
Our lack of skill in critical analysis is compounded by the next problem with our market of ideas – manipulation of the media market itself. Huge companies like Google, Facebook, and X control the algorithms for what ideas are platformed, boosted, and seen by us as consumers. Meanwhile, they are collecting personal data – our consumer behaviors, our political beliefs, and a whole other array of information – that allows them to further their ability to sell advertising and refine their algorithms to further boost speech they prefer to see. All of this is further confounded by the ability of corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence our politics in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. We should remember the adage that “if a service is free, you are the product.” In the case of our speech on most online platforms, we are not just the literal product of Big Tech, but our discourse itself becomes the product of these powerful institutions. The illusion of freedom and our ability to make an impact becomes the excuse that those institutions use to maintain their ability to functionally settle a debate before it even has a chance to start.
Finally, even if we were enlightened consumers in a fair market, our right to speak has become increasingly separated from our basic obligations to be decent to each other. One only need to look to the comment section on any website on the Internet to see the worst of civic discourse, ranging from petty meanness to outright bigotry. Just as it would be fundamentally undemocratic to vote to eliminate democracy, it is antithetical to a fair exchange of ideas to insist that some people do not deserve to be heard (or even exist) because of their race, religion, gender, or some other immutable characteristic about themselves. We see that this vitriol has real impacts. According to FBI statistics, even though violent crime is down, the number of hate crimes has increased.
Aside from basic kindness, too many of us also do not engage in the reciprocal obligation that comes with speech – to listen and engage in good faith. The Think Off is one thing, but how many times have you heard someone glibly claim that they have “done their own research”, dismissing any contrary evidence or attempting to place facts under discussion in context. Instead, we silo ourselves off, and are increasingly unwilling to be open to changing our minds and growing based on argument.
Until we have a marketplace of ideas founded on educated consumers coming from equal footing that comes from a place of mutual respect, our speech will not be worth the cost.
~~~
Emmanuel Maduabuchi, student, Enugu, Nigeria
NO, freedom of speech is NOT worth the cost
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM
Introduction
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that lies at the core of democratic societies. It allows individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without fear of censorship or persecution. However, the question arises: is this cherished freedom worth the cost it sometimes entails? In this essay, I will delve into my personal experiences to explore the complexities surrounding the value of free speech. Through a narrative lens, I will examine the benefits and drawbacks of unrestricted expression, ultimately aiming to shed light on the importance of striking a delicate balance between freedom and responsibility.
Body
Growing up in a country where freedom of speech was often suppressed, I witnessed firsthand the stifling effects of censorship. Dissenting voices were silenced, and the absence of open dialogue hindered progress and innovation. It was during this time that I realized the immense value of free speech. It serves as a catalyst for change, allowing individuals to challenge the status quo, question authority, and advocate for justice. Without the freedom to express ourselves, we risk living in a society devoid of critical thinking and intellectual growth.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that freedom of speech is not without its costs. The power of words can be both constructive and destructive. While it enables the dissemination of knowledge and the exchange of ideas, it can also be used to spread hate, incite violence, and perpetuate discrimination. The rise of online platforms has amplified these concerns, as hate speech and misinformation can now reach a global audience within seconds. The cost of free speech becomes evident when it infringes upon the rights and well-being of others, leading to social unrest and harm.
My personal experience taught me that the cost of free speech is not only external but also internal. Expressing unpopular opinions or challenging prevailing narratives can subject individuals to ridicule, ostracization, and even threats. I recall a time when I voiced my dissenting views on a controversial topic during a public debate. While I expected a healthy exchange of ideas, I was met with hostility and personal attacks. The experience left me questioning whether the price I paid for exercising my freedom of speech was worth it. It made me realize that the cost of free speech can be deeply personal, affecting one’s mental and emotional well-being.
Nevertheless, despite the potential costs, I firmly believe that the benefits of free speech outweigh the drawbacks. It is through open dialogue and the clash of ideas that societies progress and evolve. By allowing diverse perspectives to be heard, we foster empathy, understanding, and tolerance. Moreover, the ability to criticize and hold those in power accountable is essential for the functioning of a just and democratic society. Without free speech, we risk falling into the trap of complacency and authoritarianism.
The worth of free speech, however, is palpable in the gradual shifts toward tolerance. Individuals and organizations work tirelessly to bridge religious divides, leveraging dialogue as a tool for understanding. The ongoing conversations challenge societal norms and foster an environment where diverse beliefs coexist.
In the realm of religion, a sensitive and often contentious topic in Nigeria, the costs of free speech are starkly apparent. Religious differences, if articulated with a hint of dissent, can provoke violence and social ostracization. I recall a friend who, in an attempt to foster interfaith dialogue, faced backlash that strained friendships and led to personal sacrifices.
The question of whether freedom of speech is worth the cost in Nigeria is one that resonates deeply within me. The costs are tangible, from threats to personal safety to the strain on relationships. Yet, the worth is immeasurable – it is the engine that propels Nigeria toward a more inclusive, informed, and resilient future.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the value of freedom of speech is immeasurable, but it is not without its costs. While it empowers individuals to challenge oppressive systems, it can also be used to spread hate and misinformation. The personal toll of exercising this freedom can be significant, as it may subject individuals to ridicule and threats. However, the benefits of free speech, such as fostering progress, promoting dialogue, and ensuring accountability, far outweigh the costs. It is crucial to strike a balance between freedom and responsibility, recognizing that the exercise of free speech should be guided by ethical considerations. Only then can we fully appreciate the transformative power of this fundamental right.
~~~
Paul E. Terry, Editor in Chief, The American Journal of Health Promotion, Senior Fellow, The Health Enhancement Research Organization, Waconia, Minnesota
NO, freedom of speech is NOT worth the cost
When something we prize costs too much, we have two choices. One choice is to not buy the thing. Freedom of speech is an American bedrock that must be protected. Not buying it is not my argument. I have family and friends who served in our military and free speech is something they were ready to fight and die for. Thankfully, there is another choice. We can lower the cost. Physicist Niels Bohr wrote: “The opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” So, yes, it is profoundly true that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. It is also true that the cost has become unacceptably high. My opponents in this debate have the unenviable task of persuading you that freedom of speech is worth it, no matter what the costs. My argument is simpler. That is, if we want to preserve our First Amendment rights, we must acknowledge the horrendous costs that unfettered speech is having on American life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness.
On a personal note, as the Editor in Chief of a scientific journal, I have been on the receiving end of lies and harassment. I once was accused of misrepresenting a study that I had never heard of and had no involvement in whatsoever. But the costs I have incurred from malicious speech are trivial compared to the price we are collectively paying. Here is just the tip of that deadly iceberg: cyberbullying has spiked the prevalence of depression and suicides in our youth, sexual predators are grooming countless innocent girls, pro-eating disorder web sites are giving tips and tricks about purging and binge eating and other sites are dedicated to Holocaust denial or recruiting neo-Nazis.
But aren’t these all the kinds of “true threats” that are not protected by the First Amendment? In reality, the high burden of proof, the costs of litigation when weighed against potential damages and the complex legal standards about facts versus opinions make hate speech and discrimination suits exceedingly difficult to prosecute.
But this debate does not ask whether we should protect the First Amendment. This debate is about costs. Consider whether the costs can be justified in these three areas alone: 1.) Climate denial, 2.) Anti-vaccine falsehoods and 3.) Election denialism. The following facts show these costs cannot be overstated:
Per climate, a 2024 study by the University of Michigan found that “social media influencers” and “public figures” play an “outsized role” in beliefs that climate change is not real. A Yale climate opinion survey from 2024 shows that 36% of people are not worried about global warming. This in spite of a World Health Organization report that over the next twenty years climate change is expected to cause 250,000 additional deaths per year from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress alone.
Regarding vaccines, a study published in the Lancet showed the death rate was three times higher in counties with policies discouraging vaccines, masking and social distancing compared with counties that communicated truthfully about these protections. Brown University research found 318,000 died from COVID in 2022 because they were unvaccinated.
Relating to elections, a study by the Brookings Institute concluded that “the spread of misinformation” has tainted how voters think about elections. Falsehoods about election fraud are so relentless that a Washington Post survey found that only 20% feel “very confident” in the integrity of the U.S. election system. Another poll found that 56% of people have “little or no confidence” that the elections represent the will of the people. Still, in 2022, 18 states had election deniers running for Governor. Not surprisingly, 64% of Americans now believe that U.S. democracy is in crisis and is at risk of failing.
I’m an optimist who is confident that there are many ways to lower these despicably high costs. But remember, this debate question does not hinge on finding solutions, it simply asks whether we should choose to accept these costs. When Flint Michigan owned up to pipes that were leaching lead into their water supply, no one said ‘keep drinking the water, it is worth the costs.” Like common sense pollution regulations elsewhere, they worked to make the water safe to drink. America must own up to the harms caused by social media. Are such freedoms worth it? I urge you to vote no. My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins. Free speech is too important to have it destroyed by hate speech, anti-science and lies that threaten our survival.
~~~