Wills also uses authorative testimony to support his statement that censure is better than censorship. He states that while censorship can restrict a person's right to the freedom of speech, censure does not put a burden on anyone's rights. To show how censorship can put a limit on a person's given rights, the author makes the statement that censorship used to regulate and punish college students' speech are "legally muzzling,"" since it restricts the rights of the First Amendment. H e uses an authority from the ACLU to comment on these laws specifically from the University of Wisconsin, "You can tell how bad they are by the fact that the regents had to make an amendment at the last minute exempting classroom discussion! What is surprising is that Donna Shalala [chancellor of the university] went along with it."" The quote shows how censorship has gotten extremely out of hand. In addition, Wills talks about how, in the absence of censure, people begin to think about legal and m!.
oral issues on the same terms, believing anything tolerated by law must be approved by all citizens. To prove this point, Wills uses a statement from Frank Zappa as an example of this kind of reasoning, " Masturbation is not illegal. If it is not illegal to do it, why should it be illegal to sing about it?- This illustration shows how ridiculous people can think with in this point of view. Hence, censure becomes a necessity. Wills' use of authorative testimony concretes the foundation for his argument.
Wills uses rhetorical questions to promote censure as well. In his essay, he bring about the opposing argument that "only the narrow-minded are in tolerant- since many narrow- minded people will criticize and censure some demonstrations even though they my not be totally educated about the subject at hand.