America 's Constitution Was Built Upon The Fundamentals That All Citizens

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Lippman compares multiple things we tolerate by saying, “We miss the whole point when we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of our political opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door, as we put up with the blasts from our neighbor’s radio,” (lines 42-44)Through this analogy Lippman stresses that we must not have a quiet voice while voicing our opinion on important topics, however we must still respect the opinion of our opponents. The comparison of tolerating small annoyances to an opposing opinion on meaningful subjects shows the vast difference between the two

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

Lawrence sheds light upon the very turbulent issue of the First Amendment right to the Freedom of speech in contrast to the inequality caused by its misuse through racially bias speech. The author states that the University officials should endorse some sort policy that will protect the rights of those who are victimized by this “racial nuisance,” while at the same time not censoring our constitutional right of free speech, “I am troubled by the way the debates has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response universities attempts to regulate harassing speech” (Lawrence，65). Continually, Lawrence defines the set of ideals that the First Amendment was based on, particularly; equality. He goes on to show the audience that this very balance is

Carlson gives evidence of the decline in public discourse by summarizing an incident in which a talk radio host crossed the line of decency by failing to respect a person whose ideas differed from his and his listeners’. Why is it important to maintain civility toward those whom you disagree?

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

On January 13th, 2017, Chancellor Ralph Hexter of UC Davis emailed students in response to Martin Shkreli and Milo Yiannopoulos not being allowed speak at a campus event due to heated protests. The controversial Yiannopoulos is a open critic of many social justice movements, like feminism and Black Lives Matter. He’s specifically said during his events at his tour that muslims are rapists, publically yelled at a muslim for wearing a hijab, and promotes Blue Lives Matter. ('I Just Want to Burn It down') Additionally, Shkreli is a businessman who is now a convicted felon. So in response, many students were outraged and deeply upset by this organized event. In the email the Chancellor quoted the ACLU, explaining that we “can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.” However this will cause violence and make many feel patronized by the words spurred out by public speakers, like Yiannopoulos and Shrekli. Even though inviting people of different views seems like unifying people from all backgrounds, when people are content with their hatred and speak them out openly, it causes more complication. The opposite side wants to cover their ears and find the nearest exit. To be realistic, any young student won’t be welcoming with open arms to close minded speakers, especially if it seems as the main thing they desire is to get a rise out of you. The most efficient way to unify people is being respectful

The United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy’s political theory, though Eurocentric history lessons often teach about the French and Greek influence. In 1988, the House Concurrent Resolution 331 passed which recognized the Iroquois Confederacy’s contribution to the U.S. Constitution. Even after H.Con.Res 331 was passed, the Iroquois Confederacy’s influence continues to be disregarded, most people have to wait until specific classes in higher education to learn about the connection. With the whitewashing of history, many Native American influences have been overlooked that directly correlate to the creation of the U.S. Constitution, though the ‘Founding Fathers’ did revise the Iroquois’ political theory to better match the ‘freedom’ of the U.S.

All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

As American people, we know that we are entitled to certain rights according to the constitution; one of which is freedom of speech. In Civility and Its Discontents, Leslie Epstein explores the limits and contradictions of this much cherished right when considering whether he would expel a student who wrote racial slurs in the dorm rooms of a University if it was up to him. He discusses this situation and topics that stem from it in an analytical yet somewhat emotionally involved tone and makes the reader reflect on the wide range of information presented about the issues of political correctness, freedom of speech, expulsion, and racism.

Why did the founding fathers create a constitution based on the ideas of separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and the bill of rights?

In times when the U.S. confronts serious threats extremist rhetoric sometimes seems appropriate and necessary. One could argue that speeches advocating the end of slavery or the fight against modern terrorists was justified. However, those well meaning words can plant thoughts of violence in the minds of the easily persuaded to commit violence to gain results (Davis upenn.edu). Rhetoric used by political leaders is sometimes uncivil because politicians do not consider the consequences of what they say or do before they execute their plans. With this being said, it would be extremely difficult to remedy the incivility of political discourse without damaging the right of free speech granted by the first amendment; however, President Obama’s speech in Tucson, Arizona offers sound advice for political leaders, speechmakers, and those who have a wide reaching

In the USA and in each of the fifty states, the most basic fundamental is a constitution, which is a relatively simple document and is the self-designated supreme law of the land. As the supreme law of the land, Constitutional Law texts are generally divided into two parts. The first part is about the allocation of powers. This entails two basic principles of American Constitution:separation of powers and division of powers. The former one discusses the interaction among the three constituent elements of national goverment, while the latter one refers to the extent of power possessing by the federal goverment and specification of states' power. Both of the two principles function under one