Christopher Fairman The Case Against Banning The Words Summary

Summary of “The Case against Banning the Word ‘Retard’”

In “The Case against Banning the Word ‘Retard’”, Christopher Fairman says that he believes that banning derogatory words is not a great decision. He says that banning the word is against the first amendments right of speech. He says that if we let the government start banning words that we are giving government control of our speech which he believes is taboo. We shouldn’t be overthrowing our freedom of speech just so we can all get along. He explains that the words themselves are not the problem, but it’s the meaning being put on the word by the users that can make them have a negative connotation. There are many words that have multiple meanings that can be repurposed for negative or positive meanings. Fairman gives us an example of this in his article. “For

Those who are for the banning of the word and probably those who have no stance do to the lack of information given about the subject. He is trying to prove his point to the audience on why banning the word is not such a good route while educating with facts and using examples to back up his points. He also doesn’t just shut down and stop at it just shouldn’t be banned. Fairman sympathizes with the audience members who are for banning the word or experienced the negative use of it before. Government officials and people with political stand point would make up some part of the audience along with anyone who strongly stands by amendment rights and pays attention to world debates. Christopher Fairman’s purpose of addressing the audience is to make people understand why he disagrees to banning any word and give people knowledge before they make their stand-point or decision about the subject matter. He tries to explain banning words would compromise the right of speech. He gets a crossed his point that it’s not the words, it’s the way people choose to use them that can be hurtful and