In Ilya Shapiro's article "Loss for the Redskins, loss for free speech," published in USA Today on July 10, 2015, he address the use of Native American slurs in Washington, DC's NFL team name and trademark. Throughout the paper there are sound and logical arguments that appeal to the audience who may also be informed. Shapiro appears to be knowledgeable about the law including the First Amendment and how free speech should apply to the protection of names and logos used for team sports. USA Today is a nationally distributed newspaper whose intended audience are middle class citizens. While Shapiro's arguments may have an effect on like-minded readers sharing his opinion, most consumers of this publication may not pursue any further ventures into this topic after reading this article. There is no call to action to bring about change for this topic nor does Shapiro offer any suggestions of how to contribute to the debate. "Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review." Shapiro begins his article by …show more content…
This is effective because the readers of this paper, his intended audience, most likely feel strongly about their guaranteed rights stated in the Constitution and may not wish those rights to be infringed upon by the government. These statements call upon their patriotism. By reminding the audience what the First Amendment protects, and what is not protected, the reader is left to make the choice of whether he or she will agree with Shapiro's interpretation. The result of his use of calling on the readers' patriotism will probably be helpful for Shapiro's arguments because the readers of this paper most likely are strong supporters of the document that our country was founded