Explain Why People Should Not Have Restrictions On Freedom Of Speech

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.

          The bigger issue regarding our right to free speech has to do with censorship and what may potentially become of it. If we continue to strive for a society where we can say whatever we would like, just as long as it doesn't offend anyone, we are losing our rights altogether. Rauch quotes Salman Rushdie in his defense to allegedly offending millions of people, where he asked: “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist”(6). Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to say anything that wouldn't offend someone; Everyone has their own perception of what they consider offensive. Being asked to refrain from using offensive language basically disables you from speaking of anything controversial and therefore we are forced to be idle-minded automatons. Our search for truth and reasoning will be forced to halt as we will no longer be allowed to wonder out loud. If the intellectuals, geniuses, and scientists of our past hadn't been free to ponder the unreasonable, one could assume we wouldn't be where we are today. For no reason should we be forced to silence our thoughts or not speak of anything unacceptable; the result could be far more disastrous than offending people.

Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?

Hate speech is taking over our lives we get separated into groups defining what we believe in. Imagine yourself in a crowd of people fighting for your rights but in never ends. America should limit hate speech because hate speeches caused divisions in our cultures, Hate speech conducted into riots and violence it also relates to fights and citizens getting in deep trouble on social media.

In the first amendment it clearly states that we have the right to say anything we feel. We Americans have what is called “freedom of speech”. We can express this right in many ways: like protesting against something we do not believe in, saying what we want when we feel it or posting what we want to online. People have just recently become too emotional. They get their feelings hurt too easily and find a way to take offense to every little thing we say that they don’t like. Unlike most I do not think we should have a limit on our speech.

In America we have freedom of speech we have the right to speak our minds and opinions. The First amendment states “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.” Therefore, the question is should their be a speech restriction by law? or Should their be no restrictions? I feel there shouldn't be speech restrictions by law, In America there are restrictions on speech that are not protected by the government restrictions. The restrictions include defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography and threats. I feel theses

Twana A. Hassan states “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…The core notion of the principle is that humans are free to do, say, have, and to be whatever they want if there is no law explicitly prohibiting it” (488). People have a right to express their opinion, feeling, and wishes. This human right is protected by First Amendment. America is a free nation that means Americans are born with many freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of the most wonderful freedom that people are enjoying. To have this freedom, people had fight for it in the past; it has been through many different phases; and now it is different from ever before and will continue to change in the future. Freedom

1William Jefferson Mr. ArmstrongEnglish Comp 223 September 2017Speak No EvilFreedom to the people has been Americas greatest accomplishment, the border placed between the lines of freedom are not clarified. Freedom of speech is the right for the American people to express their opinion without any intervention from the government. Freedom of speech is not a privilege, it is our general right for all people regardless of their religion, nationality, or race. The restrictions for free speech is a current event that keeps the American people questioning why is it even necessary.In addition, this argument is seen from two different viewpoints. First, who agree with the fact that our freedom of speech should have restrictions to keep others from expressing their opinion to avoid an argument and criticism. On social media, people around the world have used social media to spread hateful slurs or clichés to express their opinion. Whether its racist,

Freedom of speech and the liberty to uphold one’s expression has long been the subject of many debates. It has taken centuries if not years for mankind to come to a point where many can easily voice their opinions without having to ponder over the consequences. But one should always know where to draw the line. Freedom of expression also needs to have its limits. Two of the masterminds who put forth their work on liberty and freedom of speech were John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. The concepts penned by Rousseau contradict those that were constructed by Mil; while the former focused on the functioning of the society as a whole, the latter advocated the rights of the individual to his freedom.

Free speech should not be restricted.  The first amendment gives the right for anyone to say whatever he or she wants, whenever they want and guarantees us the privilege to speak our minds without limitations.   Our right to free speech is one thing that sets the United States apart from any other country.  Since September 11, 2001 all

America and other countries alike practice the right to free speech. In many ways, this is great. Not only does the amendment protect a citizen's right to free speech, but other things, such as the right to practice any religion or for the freedom of press. However, a free society is supposed to be for all. Therefore, freedom rules out imposing on the freedom of others. One is free to walk down the street, but not to keep others from doing so. Hate speech can impose on the freedom of others.

There is one rule to remember about freedom of speech. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should, and just because you have the right doesn't mean it is right. I believe that the shooting that took place in France on January 7th this current year was unacceptable just because of the misunderstanding of freedom of speech. Charlie Hebdo has been known as a satirical cartoon company, therefore his job was to create irony whether it was based on a political, world, etc. issue. I understand that there are some limits and boundaries that fall under freedom of speech, but this was uncalled for. Muslims are always “the victims” which is not true. The same concept applies to white and black races. I know this does not apply to freedom

Censorship is the limitation of writing or speech that is considered to be harmful to the citizens of the nation. Even though censorship can be carried out by individuals, mostly it’s carried out by the government and used to suppress speeches and media contacts. The idea of censorship spread in Western Europe soon after the printing press in the late 1400s. Before printing, books were made in monasteries, and they decided what to control. The invention, printing press ended the control, monasteries had over written words. Written materials were also made faster and were spread. Soon after the invention, the government started censoring what can be written and distributed (“Censorship”). To protect citizens from the government, the Bill of Rights was created and had the First Amendment in it. The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 in the United States as part of the Bill of Rights and was added to the Constitution ("First Amendment”). It was added as colonists demanded the protection of their individual rights. The Amendment promises its citizens the right to express their thoughts without congress limiting it, however, by starting censorship, congress violated the First Amendment. In addition, congress goes one step further and even makes national laws to suppress speech. The First Amendment is not a viable document because throughout history and still today United States citizens are being punished for saying and expressing

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.