Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire: Case Study

Provocative words or indecent words that are either harming or might bring about the listener to promptly hit back or break the peace are considered to be the part of fighting words and offensive speech. Utilization of such words is not considered as a "free speech" under the First Amendment. On the off chance that the listener is indicted for such offensive words assault, this may lead to mitigating situations (Dorf & Michael, n,d).

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution of December 1791, guaranteed the civil liberty of freedom of speech. It outlined that congress is not allowed to make any laws that may bridge a citizen’s freedom of speech, religion, press, and the right to assemble. This style of liberty gives all Americans the opportunity to express their thoughts openly without being shut down by the government. For example, there have been a great deal of protest the current president. Although, he is the president and should be respected Americans still have the right to display their opinions

was violating the sixth amendment, which states that the person being accused has the right to

The First Amendment allows people to voice their opinions without repercussions. “Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” (First Amendment Rights). It allows people to talk freely among themselves, with a group of friends, or for the world to hear. One great example is Martin Luther King

To begin, the very first amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizens with the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is generally the right to express your own opinion without restrictions. This typically includes the right not to speak if you do not want to, the right to advertise goods, products, and services, and even the right to use certain derogatory words and/or phrases to transfer political beliefs. However, citizens often get confused about what is actually granted within the right and what is not. For example, if you are in a public place with a good

Throughout the years of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow latitude to speech of the press and of the people. However, the restrictions on speech the Court determined to fall outside the limits of permitted speech and therefore considered “unprotected speech” include fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, solicitations to commit crimes, child pornography, blackmail, perjury, obscenity, and false & misleading commercial speech. To look back at recorded foundations of the first amendment regarding speech – words used to incite imminent lawless action, can be seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That is to say, a state can’t stop free speech unless there is imminent danger of inciting violence.

The original intent of the clause of freedom of speech is difficult to point-out. There were several

An important thing to know about freedom of speech is it does not actually protect anything we want to say. However freedom of speech is something that the United States holds high. The first amendment of our constitution is one of the most important amendments we have to protect us. The first amendment gives us the right to free speech with very few limits. Even though this may not be the best policy it is important we protect any speech so long as it is not harming anyone. The constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Madison)” This is saying that the freedom of speech is protected by the constitution and congress cannot make laws to limit anything covered by freedom

New York: Mr. Gitlow you are charged with violating “Anti-Anarchist” laws by the State of New York.

The United States Constitution grants American citizens the freedom of speech. This single line in the First Amendment has been a staple of American culture since its ratification on December 15, 1791 (Constitution Center, 2018). The Founders recognized the significance of this freedom and the power it had to shape a young nation. It was George Washington who declared-“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” (Global Research, 2016). The legal definition of this vision is “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions- free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This sole clause has been the subject

Freedom of Speech means that an individual has the right to express their opinion without censorship or restrictions. It means that a person can say whatever they want and not be censored, but they may have to face criminal charges and consequences if they speak something that can injure people or if what they say are threats. For example, a person cannot yell “FIRE” or “BOMB” if there is no such threat. So, are there times where a person should be censored? Yes, there are times where a person should be censored. A person could write about a topic that can cause chaos and rioting. For example, if someone posts that the government is constantly watching us, then some people might protest and riot. Should people be protected from all offensive

Freedom of speech usually refers to a citizen's right to the expression and distribution of their opinions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines freedom of speech as a human right, stating that "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference". It also states that all people have the right to express and share these opinions and exchange information through any medium of communication they choose. It is important that speech and expression of speech be distinctly defined, as the method of expression can be very subjective. For example, free speech in the United States has two limitations; disruption of the peace and incitation of violence. If the speech, or manner of expression of that speech is causing a stir in an otherwise peaceful area or group of people, the speaker can be legally "censored" by the police.

Citizens of the United States of America are beyond blessed with certain rights and privileges. One of those rights and privileges we are grateful for is the very first amendment, and the first amendment is the right to freedom of speech. And the ongoing question is whether we should place limitations of the said amendment. My dad used to say “Without the freedom to offend we cannot fully and entirely have Freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech should be limited due to the array of dangerous ways it can be used.

The first amendment has been a hot topic as of lately, from protesting to kneeling during the national anthem to take a moment of silence for those who lost their lives from police brutality. The president of the united states feels as though NFL players should not kneel during the National anthem, because Trump it is disrespectful in his eyes, others may disagree but the first amendment does not state how far a person can take free speech, and yet we feel as though people can take it too far, so what exactly does having freedom of speech mean? The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government(uscourts.gov).