Bonus 12 - Response to Sam's Bonus 9 "Who has the Right?" by JJ Leath

        Deciding who can write about sensitive topics such as the Holocaust or disabilities is extremely complex, because it is a balancing act. On one hand, we have a desire for freedom of expression. The censorship of ideas is rarely a good idea. Freedom of expression, dialogue, and speech is crucial to a democracy. On the other hand, we don't want to see misinformation spread or tragedies get exploited for financial gain. I chose to respond to Sam's post because she makes a particular point that I think can help with this balancing act. In the first paragraph of her post, she writes "As readers, it is our own responsibility to interpret these stories as we see best". I think that this a great way to look at how we can balance these conflicting desires for open, honest discourse in our society. 

        I do think that there needs to be censorship of bad ideas, but I think that this censorship should be enforced not by some systematic rule, but rather by the discretion of the public. As readers, it is our responsibility to identify bad ideas and expose authors who are exploiting tragedies. I have every right to compose a paper arguing that the sky is in fact green, and nobody has the right to block me from doing this. However, it is the responsibility of the public to identify and expose this as incorrect. The same goes for the exploitation of tragedy. As Sam also said in her post, "anyone is entitled to say or feel whatever they like". No one has the right to tell an author what is acceptable and unacceptable to write about. If an author writes something exploitative, however, it is the responsibility of the public to expose this. I think this is how we can strike a balance between the conflicting desires of free speech and the condemnation of bad or exploitative works. 

        Further, Sam had another line that I thought was powerful: "Authors tend to go based off of their own research, feelings, and experiences. Therefore, it is easier to have an open mind and try to understand where they are coming from as opposed to disputing it all." I think this speaks towards how we progress as a society. Many ideas accepted now were controversial at the time of publication. The Earth being round and the sun being the center of the universe were highly controversial ideas when they were first published. If it were up to the ruling class at the time, these ideas may have never seen the light of day. Even if we read something that we don't agree with at first, we should always approach things with an open mind with understanding as our goal. 

        Overall, I thought that think that there were thought provoking lines in this post. What I think there was to be learned was that we cannot systematically censor writings, but rather it needs to be the public that accepts or rejects the works of authors. Further, I think a great lesson in this post is that we need to be careful of how quickly we dismiss an author's work. We need to approach new ideas with an open mind and a goal of understanding.