Argumentative Essay: Freedom Of Speech

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

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

What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

The principle to the case is burning a U.S. flag in protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. In determining the case, the court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment reached non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but has long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an

These acts of conduct are done to express and idea and are therefore considered free speech. At the time of Johnson’s burning of the flag he was clearly expressing elements of communication. At trial, Johnson stated that the reason for his flag burning: “The flag was burned as Ronal Regan was being re-nominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn’t have been made at that time.” The Supreme Court decided that this action was an expression of an idea and not an act of aggression to provoke violence. Therefore since it was an act of speech, Johnson was protected by the First Amendment and his conviction was in violation of the Constitution. The dissenting members of the court said that the flag is a sacred part of America. Congress set forth laws on the specific design and construction of the flag. This shows the reverence and respect that should be shown to the flag. They also wrote that in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court stated: “it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all

Across the nation and world assisted suicide is an issue that has been gaining attention for several years. With famous cases such as Jack Kevorkian it has become a household term and everyone has an opinion. There are strong cases on both sides, but the bottom line is while it may sound good for the present, it is not for the future. Assisted Suicide should not be legalized in Alabama as the negative outcomes far exceed the positive outcomes in the areas of impact on society, politics and medical education

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

Freedom of speech in America is defined by the right to express any opinions without any censorship or restraint. But it isn’t just defined by the words people speak aloud. It’s the actions they take part in to support the words they express. The writing of books and essays, creating artwork, giving speeches to grand crowds, voting, protesting. But do all people have the right to speak their mind? Should people be able to speak freely, to express opinions and thoughts, as promised in the United States constitution? A controversial topic, with many different opinions weighing in from around the world.

While some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but we should not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others.

I have an idea!  How about we let everyone freely speak their minds about issues and ideas.  Some will be better than others will of course, but the outcome will be a compilation of everyone’s best thoughts.  Everyone that is, except you.  We, meaning the country, decided that whatever it is that you have to say isn’t all that important and it is recommended that you keep all your thoughts to yourself as it is hard not to be offensive to everyone at the same time.  By offensive I mean to displease someone.  In general, no one really likes what you have to say.  Therefore it has been decided that you and only you will be silenced.

Freedom of speech is more than just the right to say what one pleases. Freedom of speech is the right to voice your opinion on certain topics or dilemmas around you. This basic right given to us in the First Amendment is being challenged by colleges who encourage “freedom of speech” with certain restrictions.

Freedom of speech is limited in almost every area of a person's life. For instance, a tennis player will be fined heavily during a tennis tournament if he expresses himself with foul language on the tennis court. This obviously curtails the right of the tennis player to express himself freely, but it protects the decency of the spectators because certain forms of language are not proper for some situations. If a person goes to the movies and begins to carry on a conversation it is most probable that security will ask him to leave the theater. By restricting his freedom of speech, the movie theater has protected the right of the person who went to enjoy a movie. The American courts have stated that the freedom of speech would not protect a man from falsely yelling "fire" in a theater and so creating a clear and present danger (Stone, Seidman). Therefore, the freedom of speech cannot be abused.

“Do you know where here is? Here is the ELI, if you want to speak Chinese, please go out.” Can you think of Mr. Cranker and the English Only Policy while seeing these kinds of sentences? He always uses a gentle intonation to say these words and repeats them thousands of times with endless patience day by day in the hall. Actually, speaking English in the ELI is non-negotiable and responsible; furthermore, this policy enables students to learn English more effectively and efficiently regardless of subduing foreign students’ freedom of speech. This Policy is a great paradigm of overturning the freedom of speech somewhat; moreover, society cannot be regulated with one hundred percent freedom until the world can become safe and sound