As a little girl, money was scarce. Living in in a tiny apartment poor was well known in my vocabulary. I was around children who had money and opportunity and two parents where I had no money, and just a single mom. Kids laughed when I had holes in my shoes and ripped stockings and none of the popular toys, and parents whispered when my mom couldn't afford to rent a hall for my birthday party or a clown, or a larger cake. It hurt when others pointed it out. I felt ashamed of my small home and my clothes and the word poor, and the fact that it was a woman raising me. I would have been happy with politically correct language, but the best would have been if no one had ever pointed it out, then maybe i would not have felt so alienated growing up. The words that offended me hurt as a child but does it mean language should be regulated? The Articles by Kakutani and Lakoff are compared and contrasted based on free speech in language, while both provide great arguments, Lakoff is more persuasive due to her use of logos. Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech” makes compelling arguments about the language that is considered “the norm”. Lakoff even states the whale every on finds hate speech as, “deplorable, and no reasonable person would ever indulge in any form of it” (Lakoff 313). She points out repeatedly that hate speech is a form of racism. Social standing is also important as to whether or not people think that hate speech and racism still exist and are a problem according to Lakoff, but she goes on to state that no one can really define speech. Language is, thought mad observable” (Lakoff 314). but how are you to manage and punish that? who is to determine what you can and cant say? Language is, “sensitive to context” (Lakoff 315), and therefore how are we to determine what is and is not appropriate to punish? Ultimately she says that once we stop giving words the power to change the world then they wont. While Lakoff hers