Argumentative Essay: America Is The Land Of The Free

The most common phrase in America today is “Home of the Free”. When America first started out in the Colonies the above quote was probably very true. As time has passed through the centuries, America has felt the need to regulate and reduce the freedom that our founding fathers had intentionally planned for us. Such things as religion, reproductive rights, Native Americans and their rights, and marriage rights are being marginalized. These rights could be considered private matters that the government shouldn’t get involved with and probably rightly so.

According to the First Amendment law from United States Constitution, a prior restraint is classified as a federal action which forbids speech or other mediums of communication and expression prior to publication. Under the First Amendment, American citizens and the press are granted the liberty of free speech. However, under certain terms the officials will sanction this blockage. For over 70 years, corporations and public figures have often wished they could stop media and broadcast stations from publishing sensitive information, their ability to censor or take action against them is very limited. The U.S Supreme Court considers this suppressive tactic as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights”. Scholars

The first amendment grants religious freedom to all citizens of the United States but when does that religions power and actions go too far, and when are we supposed to draw the line? The First Amendment grants religious freedom to the Citizens of the United States allowing them to believe what they want and freely practice their religion. This goes as far to say what happens when their power goes too far. Whether it be deemed illegal or something that the states don't feel should be going on. Should we turn our cheeks and let it go on. I feel that there should be a point in which we do put limitations on people's actions in their religions. The Founding Fathers knew that freedom of religion was very important and one of the reasons they came to America. Therefore, we have the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. These all give citizens the right to hold their beliefs and practice their religions freely but, when those actions start to go against the law and harm other people then there is a point where we need to put limitations on them.

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

In recent years racial and socioeconomic differences have grown more prevalent in our society, and many wonder why. Growing up in Ethiopia, the concept of race was never popular or significant, as there was little to no racial diversity. Coming from a country where I did not even look at the color of my skin to a place where the only thing people saw was my color, astonished me. Living in the United States and learning about slavery in middle school, I thought of it as something that was long gone, something I would never have to worry about, but as I grew older I began to see the lingering shadows that remained. A petrified twelve-year-old me once asked my mother why we were moving to America and to that question she replied “America is the land of the free; the land of opportunities”. America did feel like an embodiment of her statement my first few years here but as time passed I began to see some clear differences in how society viewed me. I wondered, if this really was the so called “land of the free”, why are minorities incarcerated at a higher rate? And why are there such significant socioeconomic and educational gaps?

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech..." The Supreme Court determined that free speech does in fact have limits. For years the first amendment only applied to the federal government, that was later changed in 1925 in the 'Gitlow v. New York' court case. The Supreme Court said that this applied to other levels of government which included public schools. 44 years later in 'Tinker v. Des Moines' The Supreme Court ruled that if a student "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others" that the First Amendment does not protect it. Then in 2007 in the 'Morse v. Frederick' case, the

The First Amendment must have limits to avoid complete mayhem. Pre-existing limits are not enough to stop the hate speech that incites violence against large groups of people. The law protects threats against these large groups and assumes that counterspeech will be regulatory. Why should people have to continuously speak out to reassert that they should be treated equally?

During this year of 1794, we have come through many tribulations and have suffered to great extent for our freedom of Britain. This country has lost fathers and sons to bring us freedom and ensure our rights are kept. It brings me displeasure to write about grievances with our own government. However we must be aware of current and past issues and let it be known that this country and government will defend its people’s rights and preserve their freedom.

Leaving the racism out, you should vote for Donald J. Trump. Yes, we know that he has been in the mouth of everyone because of his racism, but he truly loves this nation. Based on his answers to a few questions he has more great ideas than Hillary Clinton. That said, is more convenient for us as citizens of the United States to vote for Trump. There are five points that I will share with you that will convince you to vote for Trump.

The FCC’s move will allow companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to charge internet companies for speedier access to consumers and to block outside services they don’t like. The change also axes a host of consumer protections, including privacy requirements and rules barring unfair practices that gave consumers an avenue to pursue complaints about price gouging.

Net neutrality has both pros and cons to it. I believe that the pros heavily outweigh the cons. Other users out there may agree or disagree with me. If you want to continue supporting net neutrality by keeping it the same or making some adjustments or if you want to get rid of it entirely then, let your voice be heard by voting for people who are in office based that’s share or have a similar opinion as you. Net neutrality affects us all one way or another and some more than

Wheeler did not want Net Neutrality to be imposed, so millions of people was outraged and fought back for their rights. February 4, 2015, Wheeler changed his proposal to giving internet users the strongest protection when surfing the web. Activist who fought for their rights were elated when Wheeler changed his mind and his proposal was approved on February 26, 2015 on Net Neutrality. If Net Neutrality was taken away from the internet user it is as if the government is taking about our freedom of speech. Internet user want to express and expand their minds, and with out Net Neutrality cable and phone companies could block whatever they disagree with. Also, not having Net Neutrality the government can charge fees to other companies who can afford the cost, while other companies may not which can slower the service. This could be the end of the open internet. This is why we have and should stay active when it comes to law going against out natural born

In fact, the “FCC enacted the Open Internet Order in 2010 to prevent large telecommunications firms like Verizon and Comcast from stifling competition and innovation online ( Public Knowledge).” If there were no neutrality rules, Internet Service Providers can prevent users from seeing certain websites just by slowing the speed for services like Netflix and Hulu and even redirect

“Net neutrality is one where we the people are definitely on the ropes” (Ohanian,). Net neutrality means that companies like Verizon are not allowed to alter or change the things people do online. There are some countries that do not have net neutrality and the U.S. might be the next to make that list. The FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, proposed the idea to get rid of net neutrality to the FCC and now the plan is moving forward. If this law is passed, then companies will have the supreme power of the internet and will be able to slow websites down if you don’t pay. The reason why people want to keep net neutrality is because people use the internet every day and now each time people search, there will be a delay. Repealing net neutrality is bad because it limits what people can do every day, it only benefits ISP’s, and people that work on the internet will lose their jobs.

This new policy would introduce hurt more then it would help. Institutions like public libraries, schools and other places that offer Wi-Fi for use would have to pay tremendous costs. Schools, for example, are having a hard enough time obtaining the funding for materials like school supplies or for qualified teachers, and to add the cost of individual websites that students need access to is unfair and in some schools, impossible.