Formal argumentative essay Jochem Dijkslag

Means to an end

We have all heard about our colleagues in Amsterdam who took over a University building to force the board of directors of their University to think about reforming certain policies. For days on end the students occupied several University buildings even under threat of the police force. However is this form of protest constructive? Or is it a case of shoving their opinions down the throat of their superiors. In this civilized country we have certain standards regarding the change of rules in institutions. However, sometimes people cannot get their point of view across through the normal procedures and start acting rebellious and take over buildings, for instance. People should try to change things according to the rules of this society and if their ideas are good enough it will work that way.

Everybody knows them, people who always want things to happen their way. It does not matter how many arguments are provided, these people do not want to give in their statements and will find a way to get things their way. These people are usually considered annoying. It is important to realize that we live in a very developed country; the Netherlands is ranked fourth in a list of most developed countries all around the world. Although we are considered highly developed people still think they are above society’s rules, and feel that they have to force their ideas and opinions down the throats of their superiors. This set of mind can be quite damaging for society, think of the state of the building after the students evicted, not to mention the extra costs to society regarding the use of the police force.

There may be a lot of arguments in against civil obedience as a method of political change; however in some situations it might be justifiable to use it as a tool to get messages across. Mainly these cases involve actions against a dictatorial regime or similar forms of governments. In those cases it could be justifiable to use civil disobedience as a method of political change.

In conclusion, in most civilized countries, such as the Netherlands, civil disobedience as a method of political change is not justified, people who use this method of political change want to shove their opinion to the throats of their superiors and are not susceptible to counter arguments, however in some cases civil disobedience can be justifiable as a method of political change, mainly with regards to autocratic governments or dictatorial regimes.

Cynthia's Essay

Disclaimer: The author of this article is Cynthia Zoon. She is experiencing difficulties with the website and asked me to upload it on my account on her behalf.

Topic: What are the limits of free press?

Free To Pretend


Free press is a wonderful concept. It is celebrated and defended, and in some cases yearned for, on a daily basis. Countries where free press is viewed as a quotidian part of life castigate countries where journalists are prosecuted and propaganda is spread. It gives journalists the opportunity to inform citizens without government interference. It gives people a vehicle to express thoughts and opinions, or to release facts, without breaking the law. Free press should be honored and appreciated, it should never be taken advantage of.


The problem with distinguishing what it means to honor free press is that the definition of free press is ambiguous. There are myriad blogs and magazines dedicated to thought-provoking viewpoints on any given topic. In this situation, free press protects the opinions and creativity of an individual or organization. It is a constituent to freedom of speech. Released material can be viewed as offensive to other individuals or organizations, ergo some argue this is where the limits of free press are reached. However, with people having independent notions about life, anything can be considered offensive by someone else.


When it comes to news outlets, free press has, or should have, a different meaning. It is the responsibility of a news organization to offer information about current events. Adding fabrications or omitting key facts defies the purpose of informing citizens. When choosing to do so regardless, the right of free press is used to justify spreading incomplete or even incorrect information. On one hand a news report should never be subjective, although on the other hand networks and other organizations should be allowed to create an identity. This identity is what draws in their audience. Nevertheless, choosing parts of a truth to share, withhold or twist borders on disrespectful. The audience might not even realize they are, essentially, being lied to.


The interpretation of free press, and its limits, greatly depend on the situation. A satirical website serves a different purpose than a news network. While opinionated pieces can be perceived as offensive, no one would ever be able to share their beliefs if they couldn’t because it might offend someone. When it comes to news organizations, the limits of free press are easier to determine. Free press is supposed to protect citizens from government propaganda, not to give news outlets an instrument to release subjective, partial truths and portray them as factual news coverage.